You are the one that made 4 very specific claims.

So either put up or retract them and shut up.

The rules here are very very clear that if you make claims the onus is entirely on you to support them.

Are you refusing to do this ?

The speed of light is not a constant value. Its speed involves acceleration

Ole Rømer conducted a study. Based on the time he studied, there is a possibility that the Earth's orbital path and distances could be incorrect. In fact, they were incorrect. However, the times he specified were not wrong, and there is no necessity or possibility for them to be wrong.

When the Earth's orbit diameter is larger, it is 3.04 × 10¹¹ m ; when it is smaller, it is 2.94 × 10¹¹ m The time taken for light to cross the Earth's orbital diameter when it is larger is 16.898 minutes, and when it is smaller, it is 16.342 minutes.

Based on the current speed of light, it takes 16 minutes to cross the Earth's orbital diameter. Ole Rømer specified 11 minutes. However, light covered that distance in just 11 minutes, meaning the speed of light at this point is 1.45 times faster.

Although it is traveling at a rate of 1.45, considering the distance from Jupiter to Earth, only one-third of the total journey comes to our attention. 9.68 × 10⁸ km ÷ 3.04 × 10⁸ km  ≈ 3.184  That is, due to the presence of acceleration before entering Earth's orbit, it would have entered at a speed greater than the speed of light. Therefore, it can only be called acceleration, but for now, I am not in a position to specify what its ratio is. ( Maybe even if I set it to 25% for at least a quarter of an hour, its speed will double in  hour. )

Let's look at it from another angle to prove that the measurements we are currently using are wrong.

"What is the true speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s or 460,606,060 m/s? Based on Io’s orbital period (approximately 1.769 days), Ole Rømer observed that eclipses occurred 11 minutes earlier when Earth was closer to Jupiter and 11 minutes later when Earth was farther away. Using this time difference, he calculated that light takes 11 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth’s orbit around the Sun (approximately 186 million miles). From this, he estimated the speed of light to be about 220,000 kilometers per second.

Ole Rømer stated that light takes 11 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth’s orbit. At that time, the distances of Earth’s orbit might not have been accurately calculated, but now we know them precisely, don’t we?

Now, if we calculate using the correct measurements we know today, the speed of light comes to 460,606,060 m/s. This means one of these three must be wrong: Ole Rømer’s 11 minutes, the diameter of Earth’s orbit (304,000,000 km), or the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). Which of these do you think is wrong?"

Assuming that light travels at this speed (299,792,458 m/s) , it takes 16 minutes to cross the diameter of the Earth. But here the light has crossed in 11 minutes

He may have been wrong about the speed of light or diameter of Earth’s orbit, but he had no chance of being wrong about time.

44 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

Based on the current speed of light, it takes 16 minutes to cross the Earth's orbital diameter. Ole Rømer specified 11 minutes. However, light covered that distance in just 11 minutes, meaning the speed of light at this point is 1.45 times faster.

Ole Rømer's 11 minutes was for the time it takes light to travel the radius of Earth's orbit, not the diameter. Thus, Ole Rømer's speed of light was actually about 25% lower than the true value.

Ole Rømer's 11 minutes was for the time it takes light to travel the radius of Earth's orbit, not the diameter. Thus, Ole Rømer's speed of light was actually about 25% lower than the true value.

Did Ole Rømer measure the speed of light by looking at the Sun or at Jupiter's Io? If he measured it by looking at the Sun, it would be the radius. Or if he measured it by looking at Jupiter's Io, it would be the diameter.

22 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

  44 minutes ago, KJW said:

Ole Rømer's 11 minutes was for the time it takes light to travel the radius of Earth's orbit, not the diameter. Thus, Ole Rømer's speed of light was actually about 25% lower than the true value.

Did Ole Rømer measure the speed of light by looking at the Sun or at Jupiter's Io? If he measured it by looking at the Sun, it would be the radius. Or if he measured it by looking at Jupiter's Io, it would be the diameter.

It's not about what Ole Rømer measured, it's about the value you are quoting. Rømer estimated that light would take about 22 minutes to travel a distance equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun.

1 hour ago, jalaldn said:

"What is the true speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s or 460,606,060 m/s? Based on Io’s orbital period (approximately 1.769 days), Ole Rømer observed that eclipses occurred 11 minutes earlier when Earth was closer to Jupiter and 11 minutes later when Earth was farther away. Using this time difference, he calculated that light takes 11 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth’s orbit around the Sun (approximately 186 million miles). From this, he estimated the speed of light to be about 220,000 kilometers per second

let us look at these claims first.

Roemer 1644 - 1710.

Date of first metre 1799

Date of first second 1832

Both standards have changed since.

So how exactly did Roemer make any of those calculations or measurements ?

Or was it his ghost that did it ?

Roemer was dead and buried 89 years before the first definition of the metre.

He did not work in m/s or miles per something else, though he was apparantly as precise as he could be in his own system of measurement.

Note that he did not have an accurate pendulum for timing.

Wikipedia

In Rømer's position as royal mathematician, he introduced the first national system for weights and measures in Denmark on 1 May 1683.^[7][8] Initially based on the Rhine foot, a more accurate national standard was adopted in 1698.^[9] Later measurements of the standards fabricated for length and volume show an excellent degree of accuracy. His goal was to achieve a definition based on astronomical constants, using a pendulum. This would happen after his death as practicalities made it too inaccurate at the time. Notable is also his definition of the new Danish mile of 24,000 Danish feet (circa 7,532 m).^[10]

Note that it is a physical impossibility to deduce the speed of light or any acceleration from any two snapshots as you are suggesting.

It is necessary to use at least one whole years worth of measurement.

Of course Roemer never actually suggested measuring across a diameter of the earth's orbit.

How could he since that would involve looking directly at the Sun in the middle ?

His observations were taken at 'grazing incidence' which was known to be less than the diameter, but more than the radius.

Further the actual values of these diameters were not known in his day.

All they had were Kepler's astronomical units, define in terms of 1 AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

Everything else was measured as a ratio to this.

But they did not know how many Danish (or other) miles or feet were in 1AU.

Now let us look at acceleration.

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

The speed of light is not a constant value. Its speed involves acceleration

Ole Rømer conducted a study. Based on the time he studied, there is a possibility that the Earth's orbital path and distances could be incorrect. In fact, they were incorrect. However, the times he specified were not wrong, and there is no necessity or possibility for them to be wrong.

When the Earth's orbit diameter is larger, it is 3.04 × 10¹¹ m ; when it is smaller, it is 2.94 × 10¹¹ m The time taken for light to cross the Earth's orbital diameter when it is larger is 16.898 minutes, and when it is smaller, it is 16.342 minutes.

I asked about acceleration to give you the opportunity to say that light changes direction, either by refraction or by gravitational effects and this is an acceleration.

Or to suggest some sort of refraction where light actually changes speed following refraction.

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

Although it is traveling at a rate of 1.45, considering the distance from Jupiter to Earth, only one-third of the total journey comes to our attention. 9.68 × 10⁸ km ÷ 3.04 × 10⁸ km  ≈ 3.184  That is, due to the presence of acceleration before entering Earth's orbit, it would have entered at a speed greater than the speed of light. Therefore, it can only be called acceleration, but for now, I am not in a position to specify what its ratio is. ( Maybe even if I set it to 25% for at least a quarter of an hour, its speed will double in  hour. )

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Please provide a proper derivation of these figures in conventional style.

What would have 'entered at a speed greater than the speed of light' ?

Edited November 27Nov 27 by studiot

4 hours ago, jalaldn said:

(~4.2 AU) When Earth is close to Jupiter → SD

(~6.2 AU) When Earth is far from Jupiter ) → BD

The time is yours, there must be an 11-minute difference.

Now tell me your idea.

SD? BD?

I told you my idea.

22 minutes (not 11) to travel 2AU. Given the precision that they could achieve with the measurements, it’s not a bad estimate

3 hours ago, jalaldn said:

Based on the current speed of light, it takes 16 minutes to cross the Earth's orbital diameter. Ole Rømer specified 11 minutes. However, light covered that distance in just 11 minutes, meaning the speed of light at this point is 1.45 times faster.

As has been pointed out, both in this thread and in the literature, it’s 22 for the diameter. One huge issue is that you are not doing a good job of understanding the information that you’re given.

There is no reasonable expectation that an observation ~250 years ago would have the small errors we can achieve with recent measurements. If you want to claim this you’d need to show that all of the relevant parameters were already accurately determined. (you can’t)

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Given the precision that they could achieve with the measurements, it’s not a bad estimate

Indeed

I do not want to give the idea that I am doing Roemer et al down.

It is amazing what they managed to achieve in their time.

It is also worth noting that it was a cooperative effort, not due to one individual.

And the cooperators were in separate countries, sometimes at war in those days.

Even more so.

There’s a list of historical determinations of the AU in this link. The ones in the 1600s tended to be low, by as much as 40%. The best ones from that era are still off by around 7.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit

There would be errors in Jupiter’s position as well, so the distance to Jupiter would have errors, and there would be limits on the timing precision and accuracy.

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

There’s a list of historical determinations of the AU in this link. The ones in the 1600s tended to be low, by as much as 40%. The best ones from that era are still off by around 7.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit

There would be errors in Jupiter’s position as well, so the distance to Jupiter would have errors, and there would be limits on the timing precision and accuracy.

Lots of useful stuff there.

A much better Wiki article than the one about zero point energy.

+1

One thing I feel should be stated is that the greatest deviation from the true orbital period of Io occurs when Jupiter is moving away from Earth or towards Earth, not when Jupiter is furthest from Earth or closest to Earth. Indeed, when Jupiter is furthest from Earth or closest to Earth, the orbital period of Io will be close to the true value.

When Jupiter is closest to Earth (opposition), the orbital period of Io has the true value of about 42.5 hours. After this, Jupiter is moving away from Earth and therefore the measured orbital period of Io will be longer than the true value. Over the time it takes Jupiter to reach the furthest from Earth (conjunction), the deviations from the true orbital period of Io over the many orbits will have accumulated to about 16 minutes (measured as 22 minutes by Ole Rømer). And when Jupiter is furthest from Earth (conjunction), the orbital period of Io again has the true value of about 42.5 hours. After this, Jupiter is moving towards Earth and therefore the measured orbital period of Io will be shorter than the true value. Over the time it takes Jupiter to again reach the closest to Earth (opposition), the deviations from the true orbital period of Io over the many orbits will have accumulated to about –16 minutes (measured as –22 minutes by Ole Rømer).

I did some calculations:

Jupiter has a synodic period of 398.8 days from Earth, therefore the time from opposition to conjunction is 4785.6 hours. Over this period, Io will have orbited Jupiter 112.6 times. Therefore, on average, the deviation from the true orbital period of Io is 8.86 seconds (and –8.86 seconds from conjunction to opposition).

2 hours ago, KJW said:

One thing I feel should be stated is that the greatest deviation from the true orbital period of Io occurs when Jupiter is moving away from Earth or towards Earth, not when Jupiter is furthest from Earth or closest to Earth. Indeed, when Jupiter is furthest from Earth or closest to Earth, the orbital period of Io will be close to the true value.

Thank you for restating this but you need to be careful about relative motion since the phrase 'Jupiter is moving away from Earth' implies Earth is stationary and we should be working on the diameter of Jupiter's orbit of the Sun, not that of Earth.

Which is why I phrased it as the Earth moving towards or away from Jupiter, since we are working on the diameter of the Earth' orbit around the Sun.

It's not about what Ole Rømer measured, it's about the value you are quoting. Rømer estimated that light would take about 22 minutes to travel a distance equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Ole Rømer did not mention the number 22 anywhere, he only mentioned 11. The confusion arose because later people wrote Astronomical AU (Astronomical Unit) instead of the diameter in the orbit of the Earth.

let us look at these claims first.

Roemer 1644 - 1710.

Date of first metre 1799

Date of first second 1832

Both standards have changed since.

So how exactly did Roemer make any of those calculations or measurements ?

Or was it his ghost that did it ?

Roemer was dead and buried 89 years before the first definition of the metre.

He did not work in m/s or miles per something else, though he was apparantly as precise as he could be in his own system of measurement.

Note that he did not have an accurate pendulum for timing.

Note that it is a physical impossibility to deduce the speed of light or any acceleration from any two snapshots as you are suggesting.

It is necessary to use at least one whole years worth of measurement.

Of course Roemer never actually suggested measuring across a diameter of the earth's orbit.

How could he since that would involve looking directly at the Sun in the middle ?

His observations were taken at 'grazing incidence' which was known to be less than the diameter, but more than the radius.

Further the actual values of these diameters were not known in his day.

All they had were Kepler's astronomical units, define in terms of 1 AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

Everything else was measured as a ratio to this.

But they did not know how many Danish (or other) miles or feet were in 1AU.

Now let us look at acceleration.

I asked about acceleration to give you the opportunity to say that light changes direction, either by refraction or by gravitational effects and this is an acceleration.

Or to suggest some sort of refraction where light actually changes speed following refraction.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Please provide a proper derivation of these figures in conventional style.

What would have 'entered at a speed greater than the speed of light' ?

He calculated that it takes light 11 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun. If we calculate at that point with this speed, the speed of light would be 460,606,060 m/s. In that case, the already accepted speed of light, which is 299,792,458 m/s, would become wrong. But I am not saying that it is wrong.

What I am saying is: in the very first second from the beginning, the speed of light was 299,792,458 m/s, and then it gradually increased (with acceleration) and rose to a speed of 460,606,060 m/s.

In that case, before light even enters the diameter of Earth's orbit, it has already traveled a distance of about ~4.2 AU . At that time, it would have roughly taken around 20 minutes just for that distance. On that basis, I mentioned that (because of the acceleration) the speed is higher than the currently accepted speed of light.

SD? BD?

I told you my idea.

22 minutes (not 11) to travel 2AU. Given the precision that they could achieve with the measurements, it’s not a bad estimate

As has been pointed out, both in this thread and in the literature, it’s 22 for the diameter. One huge issue is that you are not doing a good job of understanding the information that you’re given.

There is no reasonable expectation that an observation ~250 years ago would have the small errors we can achieve with recent measurements. If you want to claim this you’d need to show that all of the relevant parameters were already accurately determined. (you can’t)

Tell me in full how he found those eleven minutes by calculation, and only then will you understand its depth.

No history is needed, just calculation is enough

There’s a list of historical determinations of the AU in this link. The ones in the 1600s tended to be low, by as much as 40%. The best ones from that era are still off by around 7.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit

There would be errors in Jupiter’s position as well, so the distance to Jupiter would have errors, and there would be limits on the timing precision and accuracy.

I agree that no measurements were precise in his time, but I cannot accept that time was not precise. (Even then, there were only 24 hours in a day.) Now that we have measurements, we discuss them based on them.

When Jupiter is closest to Earth (opposition), the orbital period of Io has the true value of about 42.5 hours. After this, Jupiter is moving away from Earth and therefore the measured orbital period of Io will be longer than the true value. Over the time it takes Jupiter to reach the furthest from Earth (conjunction), the deviations from the true orbital period of Io over the many orbits will have accumulated to about 16 minutes (measured as 22 minutes by Ole Rømer). And when Jupiter is furthest from Earth (conjunction), the orbital period of Io again has the true value of about 42.5 hours. After this, Jupiter is moving towards Earth and therefore the measured orbital period of Io will be shorter than the true value. Over the time it takes Jupiter to again reach the closest to Earth (opposition), the deviations from the true orbital period of Io over the many orbits will have accumulated to about –16 minutes (measured as –22 minutes by Ole Rømer).

I did some calculations:

Jupiter has a synodic period of 398.8 days from Earth, therefore the time from opposition to conjunction is 4785.6 hours. Over this period, Io will have orbited Jupiter 112.6 times. Therefore, on average, the deviation from the true orbital period of Io is 8.86 seconds (and –8.86 seconds from conjunction to opposition).

When we think that the distance from Earth determines Jupiter's Io orbital period, we are making a mistake in our math. Jupiter's Io orbital period cannot be changed by its distance from Earth.

1 hour ago, jalaldn said:

Ole Rømer did not mention the number 22 anywhere, he only mentioned 11.

Reference?

Wikipedia said: "By timing the eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io, Rømer estimated that light would take about 22 minutes to travel a distance equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun." and gave the free-to-read reference: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4375710&seq=1 (see in particular: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4375710&seq=12).

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because neither value is particularly accurate. And it is quite absurd to regard Rømer's value as meaningful in a modern context. I already shown that the average deviation from the true value of the orbital period of Io is about 9 seconds over a period of about 43 hours. Do you really think Rømer's clock was sufficiently accurate to support your claim that 11 seconds is an accurate value? Even Isaac Newton gave a value that was much closer to the modern value in his 1704 book Opticks.

Edited November 28Nov 28 by KJW

Reference?

Wikipedia said: "By timing the eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io, Rømer estimated that light would take about 22 minutes to travel a distance equal to the diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun." and gave the free-to-read reference: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4375710&seq=1 (see in particular: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4375710&seq=12).

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because neither value is particularly accurate. And it is quite absurd to regard Rømer's value as meaningful in a modern context. I already shown that the average deviation from the true value of the orbital period of Io is about 9 seconds over a period of about 43 hours. Do you really think Rømer's clock was sufficiently accurate to support your claim that 11 seconds is an accurate value? Even Isaac Newton gave a value that was much closer to the modern value in his 1704 book Opticks.

The text in the image appears to be handwritten meteorological or observational data from 1673, possibly recording conditions such as temperature, precipitation, or other measurements. The phrase "11 minutes io not visible" refers to a specific observation, indicating that on a particular date (possibly April 18, 1673, as mentioned in the data), an event or object labeled "io" was not visible for 11 minutes.
Here, "io" could be a typo, abbreviation, or misinterpretation. It might refer to an astronomical event (e.g., Jupiter’s moon Io, observed by astronomers at the Paris Observatory during that period) or a concealed instrument reading or condition. Without additional context or a clear definition in the document, "io" cannot be precisely identified. The surrounding data includes dates, times, and measurements (e.g., "9:22:0 Emero"), which may relate to time intervals or meteorological events.
With my current tools, I cannot search the internet or further analyze the document, so this is the best understanding based on the provided content. If you’d like to learn more context, I can assist with a search—would you like me to do that?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ole_R%C3%B8mer_-_Obser._Primi_Jovialium_Parisiis_-_pp1%2B4.jpg

(The people who came after Ole Rømer didn't write the data properly, they didn't even consider what he could have seen. Ole Rømer saw an 11-minute variation. Consider what he could have seen. Even in the data here, they mention the radius of the Earth's orbit instead of the diameter.)

The top of page 4 lists observations of the fourth moon of Jupiter (Callisto). At the lower half are a couple of attempts to match the number of revolutions ("Rev.") of Io with an average orbiting time for three periods, 76-77, 71-72 and 72-73. Next to them are what according to Meyer p. 19 appears to calculations of an average value of the time it takes light to travel a distance equal to the Earth orbit radius (ca. 11 minutes). At the bottom, written upside down, are calculations of eclipses in Paris based on observed eclipses at Uranienborg.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ole_R%C3%B8mer_-_Obser._Primi_Jovialium_Parisiis_-_pp1%2B4.jpg

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

When we think that the distance from Earth determines Jupiter's Io orbital period, we are making a mistake in our math.

I thought I had made it clear that it is NOT the distance from Earth that determines Io's measured orbital period but the rate at which Jupiter is moving away from Earth or towards Earth. What is being measured is essentially the Doppler effect (although the Doppler effect itself was not discovered until 166 years later by Christian Doppler).

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

Jupiter's Io orbital period cannot be changed by its distance from Earth.

Of course the actual value of Io's orbital period is not changing. That's the whole point. The change in the measured value from the unchanging true value is the amount of time it takes light to travel the change in the distance from Earth that Jupiter has moved during the orbital period of Io.

Edited November 28Nov 28 by KJW

8 hours ago, jalaldn said:

I agree that no measurements were precise in his time, but I cannot accept that time was not precise. (Even then, there were only 24 hours in a day.) Now that we have measurements, we discuss them based on them.

We have greater precision these days, because we have atomic clocks. How accurately can you divide a 24-hour day with the technology available back then? Pendulum clocks were a recent invention, and most didn’t have minute hands because of their limitations. Mechanical clocks have errors from temperature and humidity variations. Days have 24 hours, but that’s an average for solar time - that’s why GMT is mean solar time - it’s an average solar day. The location of the sun at noon varies, and determining noon is subject to the same kind of limitations as other astronomical observations.

So maybe you are precise to around a minute or so, but that’s ~10% error on this experiment.

6 hours ago, jalaldn said:

The text in the image appears to be handwritten meteorological or observational data from 1673, possibly recording conditions such as temperature, precipitation, or other measurements. The phrase "11 minutes io not visible" refers to a specific observation, indicating that on a particular date (possibly April 18, 1673, as mentioned in the data), an event or object labeled "io" was not visible for 11 minutes.

How could that refer to light crossing the earth’s diameter? It probably means not visible for 11 minutes as compared to the expected time, but as discussed earlier, that can’t be for the earth on exact opposite sides of the sun.

We have greater precision these days, because we have atomic clocks. How accurately can you divide a 24-hour day with the technology available back then? Pendulum clocks were a recent invention, and most didn’t have minute hands because of their limitations. Mechanical clocks have errors from temperature and humidity variations. Days have 24 hours, but that’s an average for solar time - that’s why GMT is mean solar time - it’s an average solar day. The location of the sun at noon varies, and determining noon is subject to the same kind of limitations as other astronomical observations.

So maybe you are precise to around a minute or so, but that’s ~10% error on this experiment.

How could that refer to light crossing the earth’s diameter? It probably means not visible for 11 minutes as compared to the expected time, but as discussed earlier, that can’t be for the earth on exact opposite sides of the sun.

Eclipses visible on the eastern horizon just before sunrise will be on the opposite side of the Sun. Similarly, eclipses visible on the western horizon after sunset will be on the opposite side of the Sun.

We have greater precision these days, because we have atomic clocks. How accurately can you divide a 24-hour day with the technology available back then? Pendulum clocks were a recent invention, and most didn’t have minute hands because of their limitations. Mechanical clocks have errors from temperature and humidity variations. Days have 24 hours, but that’s an average for solar time - that’s why GMT is mean solar time - it’s an average solar day. The location of the sun at noon varies, and determining noon is subject to the same kind of limitations as other astronomical observations.

So maybe you are precise to around a minute or so, but that’s ~10% error on this experiment.

How could that refer to light crossing the earth’s diameter? It probably means not visible for 11 minutes as compared to the expected time, but as discussed earlier, that can’t be for the earth on exact opposite sides of the sun.

How did he discover the speed of light?

Okay, in the calculation you're going to give, you can add or subtract 10 percent. Give me that amount, I need to get 11 minutes out of it.

The reason I'm asking you this again and again is not for the math, but to understand a situation.

Edited November 28Nov 28 by jalaldn

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

Eclipses visible on the eastern horizon just before sunrise will be on the opposite side of the Sun. Similarly, eclipses visible on the western horizon after sunset will be on the opposite side of the Sun.

No.

No.

If the Sun's diameter were reduced to just 1 centimeter, here's what Earth's orbit would look like in the same scaled model:

- Actual Sun diameter: ≈ 1,391,000 km

- Actual average distance from Earth to Sun (1 AU): ≈ 149.6 million km

Scale factor:

Real Sun diameter ÷ Model Sun diameter = 1,391,000 km ÷ 0.00001 km = 139.1 billion times smaller

Applying the same scale to Earth’s orbit:

Model distance from the Sun to Earth = 149,600,000 km ÷ 139,100,000,000

≈ 1.075 meters

So, in this model:

- The Sun is a sphere only 1 cm in diameter (about the size of a small marble or a peanut M&M).

- Earth orbits at an average distance of roughly 1.08 meters from the Sun’s center.

- The full diameter of Earth’s orbit (from one side of the orbit to the opposite side, passing through the Sun) would be about 2.15–2.16 meters.

In everyday terms: If you placed a 1-cm Sun in the middle of a small room, Earth would be circling it at about arm’s length — roughly 1 meter away!

If the Sun were one centimeter in diameter, the Earth would be one meter away, while Jupiter would be 5 meters away on the other side of the Sun.

(Looking at this, even if the Sun is between Earth and Jupiter, it won't cause any major obstacles.)

Edited November 28Nov 28 by jalaldn

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

Eclipses visible on the eastern horizon just before sunrise will be on the opposite side of the Sun. Similarly, eclipses visible on the western horizon after sunset will be on the opposite side of the Sun.

Sunset being the operative word here. The sun would block the view - you need to be able to view Jupiter when it’s dark, and line-of-sight to Jupiter has to be far enough away from the sun to do the observing.

Plus, Jupiter would have moved. I don’t see a way to achieve the geometry required.

“At closest approach, Jupiter will appear at a separation of only 0°55' from the Sun, making it totally unobservable for several weeks while it is lost in the Sun's glare.”

https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20270831_12_101

image from https://www.fas37.org/wp/planetary-opposition-and-conjunction/

Sunset being the operative word here. The sun would block the view - you need to be able to view Jupiter when it’s dark, and line-of-sight to Jupiter has to be far enough away from the sun to do the observing.

Plus, Jupiter would have moved. I don’t see a way to achieve the geometry required.

“At closest approach, Jupiter will appear at a separation of only 0°55' from the Sun, making it totally unobservable for several weeks while it is lost in the Sun's glare.”

https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20270831_12_101

image from https://www.fas37.org/wp/planetary-opposition-and-conjunction/

If you believe that it takes 11 minutes to sense when light is blocked from an object that is at a distance light travels in 11 minutes, and similarly, it takes 11 minutes to sense when light is emitted, then you will never be able to make this calculation.

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

How did he discover the speed of light?

Okay, in the calculation you're going to give, you can add or subtract 10 percent. Give me that amount, I need to get 11 minutes out of it.

The reason I'm asking you this again and again is not for the math, but to understand a situation.

That light has a speed and is not instantaneous arises from the fact the there was a delay in the signal. We already have seen that the earth orbit was not known precisely, nor would the distance to Jupiter (which moves, so the distance to it matters in the calculation) If the time is off by 10%, earth orbit off by 10% and Jupiter position by 10%, why is a 25% difference in the speed a surprise?

33 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

If you believe that it takes 11 minutes to sense when light is blocked from an object that is at a distance light travels in 11 minutes, and similarly, it takes 11 minutes to sense when light is emitted, then you will never be able to make this calculation.

You keep ignoring that it’s based on a differential measurement. One trip took longer than another, at a different distance. The time to travel to Jupiter wasn’t measured, it was the time to travel some chord of the earth’s orbit.

This “mistake” has happened more than once, so at some point one has to wonder if you’re just trolling.

That light has a speed and is not instantaneous arises from the fact the there was a delay in the signal. We already have seen that the earth orbit was not known precisely, nor would the distance to Jupiter (which moves, so the distance to it matters in the calculation) If the time is off by 10%, earth orbit off by 10% and Jupiter position by 10%, why is a 25% difference in the speed a surprise?

Even if I don't fully understand what you're trying to say here, I'm responding with the thought that this answer might be correct.

If you believe that when a light source is 11 minutes away (in light-travel time), it takes 11 minutes to notice when the light is turned off, and similarly it takes 11 minutes to notice when the light is turned on, then Ole Rømer could never have discovered that roughly 11-minute discrepancy.

The very fact that Ole Rømer was able to discover it means:

Even though light takes time to travel, everything we see is happening in real time — no matter how far away it is.

1 hour ago, jalaldn said:

Even if I don't fully understand what you're trying to say here, I'm responding with the thought that this answer might be correct

What do think is an appropriate response for a person, knowing they don't fully understand what, is said to them to make ?

To repeat a previous response, thinking they are the only correct person on the planet,

or to ask can you explain what you mean in more setail so that I can fully understand.

?