Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment

There are two major problems with any Flat Earth model as it applies to amateur astronomy.

A) Personal. Most unfortunately, most people (probably 99%+) have not done amateur astronomy (i.e. using a telescope with an equatorial mount). This is a terrible flaw IMO. For anyone who has, much of the Flat Earth debate can be ended right there. Without this knowledge, there is a lot of hand-waving and blowing-off, because of the lack of understanding and experience, of real facts that have been experienced by 10,000's of amateur astronomers over decades.

B) Equatorial Mount. This is one of the keys to disproving any Flat Earth model and proving a spherical Earth model. Let me explain for those of you who have not done amateur astronomy.

Distances and Movement. Basically, the closer to the Earth something is, the faster it moves relative to the "stationary" sky (i.e. galaxies).

• Galaxies. These are SOOOO FAR away that they do not appear to move at all. A stationary point of reference.
• Stars. These are very FAR away. Most appear to be stationary. There are a couple dozen stars close enough to us to move perceptively in a human life-time.
• Planets and Sun. Far away. These move across the heavens noticeably but slowly. Venus is particularly noticeable - it is the closest to the Earth and moves quickly around the Sun.
• Moon. Moves "quickly". Can be noticed night to night.
• Satellites. Move VERY quickly. Can move from one end of the horizon to the other in less than 2 hrs.
• Meteors. Woooosh.

The trick is taking pictures of these. Now-a-days, with CCD cameras, we take very short pictures (keeps atmospheric turbulence down and alignment isn't as critical) and "sandwich" them with software to get pictures. Back in the day, when pictures required many minutes or hours to photograph, alignment was critical or you got smudged stars. The good news is that most near heavenly bodies are also relatively bright and only require seconds for the photograph. So we will deal with stars and galaxies.

To take pictures, you have to track the stars in 3 ways - up/down, left/right and the rotation of the sky. If you don't compensate for the sky moving, stars move out of frame very quickly. The higher the magnification, the faster they move.

Altazimuth Mounts. Basically, these are mounts for viewing terrestrial objects (e.g. birds, buildings, etc.). For viewing the heavens, they have to have 2 sets of motors (up/down and left/right) and need to be software/hardware controlled to simulate the moving heavens. These can be quite accurate. The problem with long exposures, is that the actual telescope tube needs to rotate with the sky. That is harder to do (from a mount perspective) and would need another motor.

Equatorial Mounts. These simplify tracking the sky TREMENDOUSLY. You only need one motor, typically running at one speed (the speed the sky is rotating). Basically, you align the telescope with the axis of spin of the Earth and turn on the motor. It tracks the sky "perfectly" based on how good your alignment is. You aim at the star and take your picture. The telescope tube rotates with the sky as well.

The KEY is the alignment. On a spherical Earth, the Earth spins around its axis as defined by its N. and S. Poles. The equatorial mount needs to be aligned with that as perfectly as possible. This means that at the N. and S. Poles, the alignment would be perfectly vertical (90 deg). On the equator, it would be perfectly horizontal (0 deg). The alignment needs to be the EXACT latitude of your location (e.g. Denver 39.7392 deg, S. Georgia Island 54.2500 deg).

This alignment matches PERFECTLY with a spherical Earth model's latitudes.

That is THE problem with ANY Flat Earth model. Since the axis of ANY Flat Earth model is always vertical everywhere, telescopes with an equatorial mount would be aligned vertically EVERYWHERE on Earth. Since we have to align telescopes based on latitude, this clearly shows the Earth is not flat but spherical.

If you are observing point A from point B, there are two variables. You alter point A when comparing FE and RE: you change the world from a sphere to a plane. You don't alter point B, however: you appear to keep the heavens behaving the exact same between the two models. That's where thef law in your argument is.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Please provide a concrete example on how you would align a telescope with an equatorial mounting on your Flat Earth (DE) model - something ANY amateur astronomer can test please. No hand-waving.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Please provide a concrete example on how you would align a telescope with an equatorial mounting on your Flat Earth (DE) model - something ANY amateur astronomer can test please. No hand-waving.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point. As you pointed out, we are roughly parallel to the equator as it stands. The angle of a mount isn't to align it with part of the Earth. The heavens would be different on a FE. You seem to be just copy-pasting the stellar systems from RET to FET: that's doomed to failure.

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 24, 2015, 08:47:40 AM

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Please provide a concrete example on how you would align a telescope with an equatorial mounting on your Flat Earth (DE) model - something ANY amateur astronomer can test please. No hand-waving.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point. As you pointed out, we are roughly parallel to the equator as it stands. The angle of a mount isn't to align it with part of the Earth. The heavens would be different on a FE. You seem to be just copy-pasting the stellar systems from RET to FET: that's doomed to failure.

"As you pointed out, we are roughly parallel to the equator as it stands." - although latitudes are parallel to the equator, the angle of the equatorial mount goes up as the latitudes increase - gradually - from 0 deg on the equator to 90 deg at the poles. These match exactly the latitudes on a spherical model. You align the telescope exactly with the latitude of the Earth. This is based exactly on aligning the mount with the exact axis of the Earth.

On any FE model, including DE, the axis runs from the true N. Pole to the true S. Pole (not in Antarctica on an FE model). The mount has to be aligned with that. If it doesn't, please explain.

Honestly, concerning the DE model, to me having read the working posts about it, to get around the problems any uniplanar FE has - especially with the S. hemisphere, you simply squished a spherical Earth model to mostly being flat. It has bulges on both sides and around the equator. To get around everything else that we observe, you propose an mystical fairy dust - Aether - that magically solves everything. It keeps us on the Earth, it probably has the right shape and refractive index to make the sky appear like it does on a spherical Earth (hence aligning telescopes). It somehow has the ability to teleport everything instantaneously from one side of the Earth to the other (I'm really not sure why that is necessary). In short, it has more fantastic powers than the mightiest super hero. If there is any problem, just say Aether will handle it. Now, if only you had one single proof that it exists other than your model needs it to (and has all these superpowers). Basically, it amounts to hand-waving (magic word - "Abracadabra!" ... er... "Aether!").

There are all sorts of sites that describe various models. The Spherical Earth is all over the place as it is the general model people use. This site describes mainly the uniplanar Flat Earth model. There are Hollow Earth and Concave Earth sites. You need to produce something (besides a secret society - those people who PM you - talk about a conspiracy) that explicitly describes what your model is. If I got it wrong based on what I have read, I am sorry.

Your "PM me" idea is brilliant actually. That way, people trying to disprove your theory only have themselves. They can not see what the other peoples' arguments are. You can ignore people if you don't like what they are saying. You can say one thing to one person based on what is needed by the model and even the opposite to someone else. No one, not even you, will know what the real model looks like because it may not even exist or is changing or there are several depending on the argument (much like the uniplanar FE model). As a result, I am not going to play that game. You need to present your theory/model/map so everyone can see it and the arguments for or against it. If you don't, the DET, like the Aether, will just be in your head.

"The heavens would be different on a FE." - on a uniplanar FE what we observe should be the same. Since we don't have a DE model to look at, this statement is meaningless.
"You seem to be just copy-pasting the stellar systems from RET to FET: that's doomed to failure." - until you disprove what I said, it is not doomed or a failure. Saying so doesn't make it so.

The equatorial mount alignment clearly disproves the uniplanar FE model. As we don't know what your DE model is, you simply saying it works there means exactly nothing.

As I said "Please provide a concrete example on how you would align a telescope with an equatorial mounting on your Flat Earth (DE) model - something ANY amateur astronomer can test please. No hand-waving."

I am tired of trying to prove/disprove things on models that don't exist.

Ah... It's... mildly amusing to be back... What did I miss?

Oh, yeah, and if the earth was flat, the stars wouldn't even look like they're moving in circular trajectories around the celestial poles. They would appear to move in ovals, and their apparent speeds would be all fucked up. By the way, that would also be true for the sun. But flat earthers just sort of ignore all that.

Ah... It's... mildly amusing to be back... What did I miss?

Oh, yeah, and if the earth was flat, the stars wouldn't even look like they're moving in circular trajectories around the celestial poles. They would appear to move in ovals, and their apparent speeds would be all fucked up. By the way, that would also be true for the sun. But flat earthers just sort of ignore all that.

True in the uniplanar model only. You're welcome to learn DET.

On any FE model, including DE, the axis runs from the true N. Pole to the true S. Pole (not in Antarctica on an FE model). The mount has to be aligned with that. If it doesn't, please explain.

I have. Please respond to my answer, rather than concluding it must be wrong with unstated justification. and repeating your question.

Honestly, concerning the DE model, to me having read the working posts about it, to get around the problems any uniplanar FE has - especially with the S. hemisphere, you simply squished a spherical Earth model to mostly being flat. It has bulges on both sides and around the equator. To get around everything else that we observe, you propose an mystical fairy dust - Aether - that magically solves everything. It keeps us on the Earth, it probably has the right shape and refractive index to make the sky appear like it does on a spherical Earth (hence aligning telescopes). It somehow has the ability to teleport everything instantaneously from one side of the Earth to the other (I'm really not sure why that is necessary). In short, it has more fantastic powers than the mightiest super hero. If there is any problem, just say Aether will handle it. Now, if only you had one single proof that it exists other than your model needs it to (and has all these superpowers). Basically, it amounts to hand-waving (magic word - "Abracadabra!" ... er... "Aether!").

And all of that is nonsense and the precise reason I prefer to teach via PMs. No doubt where you got that from was posts by the likes of AusGeoff who are excusively here to mock and insult, and who delight in parodying and jeering at FEers. You cannot deny how often that goes on: do you believe they'll be concerned in accurate depictions?

You need to produce something (besides a secret society - those people who PM you - talk about a conspiracy) that explicitly describes what your model is. If I got it wrong based on what I have read, I am sorry.

I'm teaching the people who want to know. It's that simple. You have only yourself to blame if you don't learn the model.
I'm tecahing it as science is taught: a controlled setting, no trolls bursting in to shout and distract, and clean, clear Q&A. I've tried to do this in the forum before; it quickly becomes incoherent.

Your "PM me" idea is brilliant actually. That way, people trying to disprove your theory only have themselves. They can not see what the other peoples' arguments are. You can ignore people if you don't like what they are saying. You can say one thing to one person based on what is needed by the model and even the opposite to someone else. No one, not even you, will know what the real model looks like because it may not even exist or is changing or there are several depending on the argument (much like the uniplanar FE model). As a result, I am not going to play that game. You need to present your theory/model/map so everyone can see it and the arguments for or against it. If you don't, the DET, like the Aether, will just be in your head.

"The heavens would be different on a FE." - on a uniplanar FE what we observe should be the same. Since we don't have a DE model to look at, this statement is meaningless.
"You seem to be just copy-pasting the stellar systems from RET to FET: that's doomed to failure." - until you disprove what I said, it is not doomed or a failure. Saying so doesn't make it so.

The equatorial mount alignment clearly disproves the uniplanar FE model. As we don't know what your DE model is, you simply saying it works there means exactly nothing.

As I said "Please provide a concrete example on how you would align a telescope with an equatorial mounting on your Flat Earth (DE) model - something ANY amateur astronomer can test please. No hand-waving."

I am tired of trying to prove/disprove things on models that don't exist.

The DE model holds. The model exists, you don't have to delete a message after reading: you're encouraged not to. I simply prefer to teach a model in a setting where it may actually be taught, and won't be constantly interrupted, mocked and made incomprehensible by trolls. I would very much like to see you find a way to explain anything on this forum.
I've tried it your way before. The response is either 'tl;dr' or a troll, or a misunderstanding because they didn't learn the model progressively (it builds on past elements).

Just because yo don't want to learn a model does not mean you cannot deny its existence. Don't speak to me if you don't like it. Let others make up their own minds.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on October 24, 2015, 11:17:07 AM

Ah... It's... mildly amusing to be back... What did I miss?

Oh, yeah, and if the earth was flat, the stars wouldn't even look like they're moving in circular trajectories around the celestial poles. They would appear to move in ovals, and their apparent speeds would be all fucked up. By the way, that would also be true for the sun. But flat earthers just sort of ignore all that.

True in the uniplanar model only. You're welcome to learn DET.

JR, your DET may be worthy of thought. You probably spent many hours developing it and refining it. I appreciate that.

Having said that, here is my problem. Looking at the original posts of the DET (work in progress), you started with a single Sun around the equator. When that didn't work because of objections, you went to 2 Suns. When that didn't work, you went to a single Sun in the center of the 2 disks using Aether to distribute light. I have no idea what the current theory concerning the Sun entails and... it might change a week from today.

My point is simply this... unless you post the DET model/map so everyone is working on the same page, you might have 100 people PMing you on the Sun equator version, another 100 people PMing the 2 Sun version, another 100 people on the Sun in the center of the Earth version, and another 100 this week on the current version and a different 100 on the new and improved version next week. All the while, none of these 500 people would know about the others. They would not know there are at least 5 versions of the DET model. I will not play that game.

Unless you can post your current/final version of your DET model/map, there is nothing to discuss about it. I will not accept your statement that any objection is "taken care of" by your model.

Unfortunately, regardless of how much time and effort you have put into the DET, unless your model is presented, I will summarily dismiss any reference to any objections in any of these threads/posts that you refer to it. Sorry.

JR, your DET may be worthy of thought. You probably spent many hours developing it and refining it. I appreciate that.

Having said that, here is my problem. Looking at the original posts of the DET (work in progress), you started with a single Sun around the equator. When that didn't work because of objections, you went to 2 Suns. When that didn't work, you went to a single Sun in the center of the 2 disks using Aether to distribute light. I have no idea what the current theory concerning the Sun entails and... it might change a week from today.

My point is simply this... unless you post the DET model/map so everyone is working on the same page, you might have 100 people PMing you on the Sun equator version, another 100 people PMing the 2 Sun version, another 100 people on the Sun in the center of the Earth version, and another 100 this week on the current version and a different 100 on the new and improved version next week. All the while, none of these 500 people would know about the others. They would not know there are at least 5 versions of the DET model. I will not play that game.

Unless you can post your current/final version of your DET model/map, there is nothing to discuss about it. I will not accept your statement that any objection is "taken care of" by your model.

Unfortunately, regardless of how much time and effort you have put into the DET, unless your model is presented, I will summarily dismiss any reference to any objections in any of these threads/posts that you refer to it. Sorry.

As I have said, i have tried your way of presenting the model. if you have researched, you've seen the end result. Either there's a tremendous wall of text which no one reads all of, and so no one understands the model, or there's a debate thread that swiftly becomes a mess from trolls and people who haven't taken the time to learn anything about the model.

The model has remained fixed for many months now. Only relatively minor elements of the theory have changed: the Sun is only relevant to a handful of REer points, and the underlying mechanism and system is fixed. You found the threads when I was developing the theory, you should be more worried if it hadn't altered in that time.

The fact is, the mdoel exists, and I have told you how you might have it be presented to you. It is your choice, but you can make no claims about the model as it is solely your refusal to put effort into learning the theory that is the problem.
Do you expect understanding an alternative scientific theory that explains the world to be simple?

I'm teaching the people who want to know. It's that simple. You have only yourself to blame if you don't learn the model.
I'm tecahing it as science is taught: a controlled setting, no trolls bursting in to shout and distract, and clean, clear Q&A. I've tried to do this in the forum before; it quickly becomes incoherent.

This is not how science is taught. Science is taught in a classroom with many students in it so they can ask questions. Other students can listen and ask follow-up questions. Your method is how "secret knowledge" is taught - one on one. Perhaps different "secrets" to different students. When you answer a PM question/objection, do you tell EVERYONE who has PM'd you? What about new "students", do they get ALL of your "secret knowledge" or do you control them in your "controlled setting". Keep in mind a "controlled setting" is not only for trolls.

Discussing your model on ANY thread in this forum is useless therefore, as only 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 people know what the "students in the know" know about your DET. That is why I said I am not going to respond to your "my DET model answers that, but you can only find that out if you PM me" stuff. When I post stuff, I want EVERYONE to see it, not just YOU. Why should I or anyone waste their time with just you?

If that is how you want to spread your "secret knowledge", fine by me. I am not going to play your game. Teach it to someone who cares. I want EVERYONE to be on the same page.

EVERYONE knows that Equatorial Alignment can not happen on the FE model. My information is not "secret". I am fine with ANYONE bringing up valid points. Sure there are trolls like Testify and WeissEdel, but that is the risk you take.

If you notice, this is a Flat Earth DEBATE forum - not the PM JR forum...

Quote

I'm teaching the people who want to know. It's that simple. You have only yourself to blame if you don't learn the model.
I'm tecahing it as science is taught: a controlled setting, no trolls bursting in to shout and distract, and clean, clear Q&A. I've tried to do this in the forum before; it quickly becomes incoherent.

This is not how science is taught. Science is taught in a classroom with many students in it so they can ask questions. Other students can listen and ask follow-up questions. Your method is how "secret knowledge" is taught - one on one. Perhaps different "secrets" to different students. When you answer a PM question/objection, do you tell EVERYONE who has PM'd you? What about new "students", do they get ALL of your "secret knowledge" or do you control them in your "controlled setting". Keep in mind a "controlled setting" is not only for trolls.

Discussing your model on ANY thread in this forum is useless therefore, as only 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 people know what the "students in the know" know about your DET. That is why I said I am not going to respond to your "my DET model answers that, but you can only find that out if you PM me" stuff. When I post stuff, I want EVERYONE to see it, not just YOU. Why should I or anyone waste their time with just you?

If that is how you want to spread your "secret knowledge", fine by me. I am not going to play your game. Teach it to someone who cares. I want EVERYONE to be on the same page.

EVERYONE knows that Equatorial Alignment can not happen on the FE model. My information is not "secret". I am fine with ANYONE bringing up valid points. Sure there are trolls like Testify and WeissEdel, but that is the risk you take.

If you notice, this is a Flat Earth DEBATE forum - not the PM JR forum...

You have already made up your mind, and you are ignoring everything to insist what you're saying is accurate, when I have specifically decried it. This is the problem with trying to explain a model to this forum: the likes of you, trolls, will not listen, will not take the time to learn anything, and will repeat arguments even after they are answered and refuted. For example, your equatorial alignment claim was refuted: you simply ignored it, because you do not want to surrender the argument.
How, exactly, is openly available knowledge 'secret'?

For example, your equatorial alignment claim was refuted:

how? where?

How, exactly, is openly available knowledge 'secret'?

As I stated, since you are teaching it "one on one", very few people will know about it  - 100 at most probably. What people do know will not be the same based on your discussions with them. It is not public knowledge available for everyone (as a document with descriptions and pictures/models/maps that can be passed around). How will the millions and billions of people not on this website know about it? PM you? It is hard enough when Flat Earth/Hollow Earth/Concave Earth people have YT videos and websites to disseminate their theories. The "openly available knowledge" is only available by PM from this website. I would say that is "secret".

Quote

For example, your equatorial alignment claim was refuted:

how? where?

In this thread. You ignored it, I called you out on it, you proceeded to ignore that.

Quote

How, exactly, is openly available knowledge 'secret'?

As I stated, since you are teaching it "one on one", very few people will know about it  - 100 at most probably. What people do know will not be the same based on your discussions with them. It is not public knowledge available for everyone (as a document with descriptions and pictures/models/maps that can be passed around). How will the millions and billions of people not on this website know about it? PM you? It is hard enough when Flat Earth/Hollow Earth/Concave Earth people have YT videos and websites to disseminate their theories. The "openly available knowledge" is only available by PM from this website. I would say that is "secret".

How many of those millions and billions do you believe would dedicate any time to trying to understand a scientific model? FEers and the like on youtube rarely dedicate any time to science. They're conspiracy theorists, that's all.
Given that anyone could get said knowledge, that pretty much defies the basic definition of secret. I'm just choosing not to waste my time arguing with the 80/90% of the people on this site who aren't interested in putting any effort into understanding a model. It's that simple. There's no reason for this to be a permanent state of affairs, but making a post on this forum does not work to teach anything. I have tried it. And I have no audience among the typical FEers on youtube and the like, as I'm not interested in reptilian overlords and government duplicates.

DET needs a beginning, like all theories. When it has respect, then people may start trying to actually understanding the science behind it. That isn't the case yet.

You seem to have concluded that just because I'm a FEer I'm incapable of considering my options and coming to a reasonable conclusion. You are wrong. Please stop ignoring this fact: and also stop ignoring the fact that I have tried it the way you propose and it does not work.

Quote

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 24, 2015, 04:25:34 PM

Quote

For example, your equatorial alignment claim was refuted:

how? where?

In this thread. You ignored it, I called you out on it, you proceeded to ignore that.

how? where?
I want to discuss this with EVERYONE on this forum, not just YOU - "one on one".

Please stop ignoring this fact: and also stop ignoring the fact that I have tried it the way you propose and it does not work

Got it... Open debate does not work...

You personally answering "one on one" questions is the way to go - no debate. I've already stated my objections to your way.

Question for you & your telescope . Can you determine if what your looking at thought  it ,is or is not a reflecton or even a reflection of a reflection of a reflecton .......................& so on.

In 2009 there were a series of photos of mars , taken by a amiture  astronomers club .connected  with a USA university.  Theses series of photos clearly showed the out lined land mass of unmistakable northen hemisphere . The America's &, Alaska . Stuck out like dogs balls on a cannery.
Those photos are no longer available .on the net & have been replaced by distorted versions.  Otherwise I would link them. The fact is they where removed. Why ?. Because anyone recognizing the obvious comparison as I did , could only deduced from them . Mars was a reflection of earth.

Question for you & your telescope . Can you determine if what your looking at thought  it ,is or is not a reflection or even a reflection of a reflection of a reflection .......................& so on.

In 2009 there were a series of photos of mars , taken by a amateur  astronomers club .connected  with a USA university.  Theses series of photos clearly showed the out lined land mass of unmistakable northern hemisphere . The America's &, Alaska . Stuck out like dogs balls on a cannery.
Those photos are no longer available .on the net & have been replaced by distorted versions.  Otherwise I would link them. The fact is they where removed. Why ?. Because anyone recognizing the obvious comparison as I did , could only deduced from them . Mars was a reflection of earth.

Don't know about these. You will have to post pictures to discuss. As far as reflections, the only reflection related stuff would be the Sun's light on everything in the solar system. You can also see the Earth's light on the dark phases of the Moon (Earthshine) and the Moon's light on the Earth at night (especially Full Moon in a really dark place on the Earth).

The point of the thread is telescope alignment to take pictures. Every astronomer (professional or amateur) with an equatorial mounted telescope, before viewing or photographing anything, has to align it. When aligned with the single motor running, it keeps whatever in view even at high magnifications. The question is ... how is this done on an FE model? On an FE model, the alignment would not be 0 deg on the equator or 54 deg at S. Georgia Island in the S. Atlantic ocean.

Got it... Open debate does not work...

No, it doesn't when trying to explain a model. Why is this difficult to grasp? Teaching is not a suitable time for debate, until you understand what it is you're debating.

You personally answering "one on one" questions is the way to go - no debate. I've already stated my objections to your way.

Feel free to discuss with everyone, when you and they know the model. This is only meant to be a way to teach and explain the model. You don't need to be convinced of it by PMs, you just need to understand what it is that is being proposed. I think it is very obvious that this would be much easier for all involved with no interruptions and easy requests for clarification.

Your objections seem to be based in the hope that this forum isn't populated by trolls. It's impossible to explain anything with their ilk butting in. There's a reason teachers kick troublemakers out of class.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on October 24, 2015, 11:17:07 AM

Ah... It's... mildly amusing to be back... What did I miss?

Oh, yeah, and if the earth was flat, the stars wouldn't even look like they're moving in circular trajectories around the celestial poles. They would appear to move in ovals, and their apparent speeds would be all fucked up. By the way, that would also be true for the sun. But flat earthers just sort of ignore all that.

True in the uniplanar model only. You're welcome to learn DET.

No, DET doesn't explain it either. Plus it's even sillier than FET. You have a magical thing called ether, whose properties you haven't even described in the most basic level, and whatever problem your theory has, you just say "ether solves it", without explaining how.

In 2009 there were a series of photos of mars , taken by a amiture  astronomers club .connected  with a USA university.  Theses series of photos clearly showed the out lined land mass of unmistakable northen hemisphere . The America's &, Alaska . Stuck out like dogs balls on a cannery.
Those photos are no longer available .on the net & have been replaced by distorted versions.  Otherwise I would link them. The fact is they where removed. Why ?. Because anyone recognizing the obvious comparison as I did , could only deduced from them . Mars was a reflection of earth.

Lol. You can see Mars whenever you want. I have personally observed it many times with my telescope, and it doesn't look like that. The photos you saw were probably a hoax, if they even ever existed. I guess Saturn or Jupiter are also reflections?

No, DET doesn't explain it either. Plus it's even sillier than FET. You have a magical thing called ether, whose properties you haven't even described in the most basic level, and whatever problem your theory has, you just say "ether solves it", without explaining how.

An unjustified claim.
And you have outright lied. Aether is well-defined and explained completely, and in detail. You do not know the model. The end. Stop claiming that you do. How about you listen to people who know the model, rather than REers and trolls who aren't interested in accurately presenting any kind of FET?

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 25, 2015, 04:58:30 AM

Got it... Open debate does not work...

No, it doesn't when trying to explain a model. Why is this difficult to grasp? Teaching is not a suitable time for debate, until you understand what it is you're debating.

Quote

You personally answering "one on one" questions is the way to go - no debate. I've already stated my objections to your way.

Feel free to discuss with everyone, when you and they know the model. This is only meant to be a way to teach and explain the model. You don't need to be convinced of it by PMs, you just need to understand what it is that is being proposed. I think it is very obvious that this would be much easier for all involved with no interruptions and easy requests for clarification.

Your objections seem to be based in the hope that this forum isn't populated by trolls. It's impossible to explain anything with their ilk butting in. There's a reason teachers kick troublemakers out of class.

You are proving my points exactly.

JRoweSkeptic and I have exchanged PMs. Does any reader of this thread know this? The contents of those posts? Can anyone add anything to my or JR's arguments? (The posts had nothing to do with me learning DET, just "PM me" vs open forum/peer review discussion)

Information Control - this is what governments and NASA are accused of doing - is that bad? This is what teaching through Master/Student "one on one" does. Why is JR's teaching method any different?

Divide and Conquer. People are "experts" in math, physics, engineering, cartography, piloting, boating, amateur astronomy, etc. When various people review a hypothesis/theory (i.e. peer review), they can notice discrepancies others don't. Like how many readers know about amateur astronomy and aligning equatorially mounted telescopes? The "PM me" system relies on the SEPARATION of people. You are all alone trying to "figure out"/object to the model. It is THE way Masters like to teach. They control information flow. They are the hub. They choose what to disseminate to others. They are in TOTAL control of the information. If someone presents a real physics objection that disproves DET, will the Masters really share it with the dozens of Students? or hide it? How do you know? For the "PM me" system to work, you must ABSOLUTELY TRUST the Master. Do you trust JR?

His main beef is there are trolls and various people who really aren't interested in DET or want to understand it. He is only interested in teaching "one on one", Students that are interested.

WE can bring those PMs to a forum and debate it. Of course, if we misstate something, JR will be all over us. We can't win. HE won't bring the issues to a forum. Like I said, the "PM me" system is brilliant, great, wonderful for the MASTER. It totally SUCKS for the STUDENT.

As I said in my PMs with JR, until he posts the FINAL single version of DET (with models and maps) - officially coming from HIM - so EVERYONE can debate it, I am totally not interested in learning it "one on one". I don't have the "expertise" in multiple fields to assess its accuracy. I am not going to post his PMs and my PMs on forums. If you all want to do it, knock yourselves out...

He wants his "PM me" approach. I reject it for the reasons stated in this thread. Like I told him, the best we can do is "agree to disagree". I wish the Master and his Students good luck.

Now... getting back to the topic of this thread... Any FEer want to explain how to align a telescope with an equatorial mount on your FE model?

WE can bring those PMs to a forum and debate it. Of course, if we misstate something, JR will be all over us. We can't win. HE won't bring the issues to a forum. Like I said, the "PM me" system is brilliant, great, wonderful for the MASTER. It totally SUCKS for the STUDENT.

Easy solution: don't mistake something.
The PM system is EXCLUSIVELY for the purpose of explaining the model. There is no information control; anyone may ask, and anyone may debate it in the open forums. If you want an expert in another topic to study it, ask them to see if they want to PM me.

If someone presents a real physics objection that disproves DET, will the Masters really share it with the dozens of Students? or hide it? How do you know? For the "PM me" system to work, you must ABSOLUTELY TRUST the Master. Do you trust JR?

We are in a forum. Post the disproof. Easy.

His main beef is there are trolls and various people who really aren't interested in DET or want to understand it. He is only interested in teaching "one on one", Students that are interested.

My problem is that if you are presented with a forum post that is just a huge wlal of text, you will either decide it's too long to read, or you'll skim it. In either case, YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THE MODEL. The personal teaching method is well-known and well-used as a way to explain trickier concepts in a manner which is very easy to ask for clarification.

There is no information control whatsoever outside of your paranoid brain. You constantly decide to ignore the fact that it is tremendously easy to post publicly, and that I am not some mysterious spectre. You have the advantage: people will listen to REers over me. If you post that the model is disproven, peopel will listen to you, even if what you say is utter garbage. The bullshit about aether portals which I have never once proposed, which still makes the rounds on this forum is perfect evidence of this.

You are being an idiot, and it's that simple. There is no information control. There is just a system to make it far easier to explain the model: which no one wants to do because no REer is interested in putting any effort into understanding FET. Your bullshit paranoia is no excuse. There is no grand secret, anyone can hear the exact same story, and you can easily talk among yourselves. This is and has always been the case, but you choose to ignore it because it is convenient for you: because you want to pretend you have an excuse, even though it is palpable nonsense, AS IS OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE.
But you're a REer, so no one else is going to call you out on it. That's how this forum works. Sad really.

Now... getting back to the topic of this thread... Any FEer want to explain how to align a telescope with an equatorial mount on your FE model?

Long since done, you just chose to ignore it.

Quote

WE can bring those PMs to a forum and debate it. Of course, if we misstate something, JR will be all over us. We can't win. HE won't bring the issues to a forum. Like I said, the "PM me" system is brilliant, great, wonderful for the MASTER. It totally SUCKS for the STUDENT.

Easy solution: don't mistake something.
The PM system is EXCLUSIVELY for the purpose of explaining the model. There is no information control; anyone may ask, and anyone may debate it in the open forums. If you want an expert in another topic to study it, ask them to see if they want to PM me.

So you say... And if they PM you, how will I know what was discussed? This was my point in my post above.

Quote

His main beef is there are trolls and various people who really aren't interested in DET or want to understand it. He is only interested in teaching "one on one", Students that are interested.

My problem is that if you are presented with a forum post that is just a huge wlal of text, you will either decide it's too long to read, or you'll skim it. In either case, YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THE MODEL. The personal teaching method is well-known and well-used as a way to explain trickier concepts in a manner which is very easy to ask for clarification.

There is no information control whatsoever outside of your paranoid brain. You constantly decide to ignore the fact that it is tremendously easy to post publicly, and that I am not some mysterious spectre. You have the advantage: people will listen to REers over me. If you post that the model is disproven, peopel will listen to you, even if what you say is utter garbage. The bullshit about aether portals which I have never once proposed, which still makes the rounds on this forum is perfect evidence of this.

You are being an idiot, and it's that simple. There is no information control. There is just a system to make it far easier to explain the model: which no one wants to do because no REer is interested in putting any effort into understanding FET. Your bullshit paranoia is no excuse. There is no grand secret, anyone can hear the exact same story, and you can easily talk among yourselves. This is and has always been the case, but you choose to ignore it because it is convenient for you: because you want to pretend you have an excuse, even though it is palpable nonsense, AS IS OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE.
But you're a REer, so no one else is going to call you out on it. That's how this forum works. Sad really.

Listen, I agree with you. It would be great to get rid of the trolls and disinterested people. Your system DOES do that - no question.
But, that is only looking at half the equation - the GOOD half. To see the whole picture, you need to see the BAD half as well. That is only reasonable. People have to be warned about the possible misuse of the system, unintentional or deliberate. Sorry.

Why have a debate forum at all... Just have everyone present something (a one liner) and say "PM me"?

• South Celestial Pole (SCP) can't be seen above a disk model. PM me for details.
• A boat traveling from Ushuaia, AR to S. Georgia Island disproves UFET. PM me for details.
• You can't align a equatorially mounted telescope in the FET model. PM me for details.

Is this really the way you want to handle these? This forum would be dead in a week.

Unlike you, I am not afraid of "peer review" of my topics. Yes, there have been trolls (Testify, WeissEdel) and disinterested parties - no doubt. On the whole though, people have seen through my threads what the arguments are. Some other peoples threads probably piggy-backed off mine. Some of mine piggy-backed off of others. This is how ideas grow.

Like I said, we simply need to "agree to disagree" on the method. If people want to do "one on ones" with you, and know the possible pitfalls, great, wonderful, terrific... go for it...

Quote

Now... getting back to the topic of this thread... Any FEer want to explain how to align a telescope with an equatorial mount on your FE model?

Long since done, you just chose to ignore it.

This thread is 1 page long... where?

So you say... And if they PM you, how will I know what was discussed? This was my point in my post above.

Yes, so I say. Do you have anything other than being a paranoid nut to bring to this conversation?
How would you know? Easy, ask them. if their refutation goes anywhere, they'd likely post that I had no answer. if it didn't, DET stands.

Listen, I agree with you. It would be great to get rid of the trolls and disinterested people. Your system DOES do that - no question.
But, that is only looking at half the equation - the GOOD half. To see the whole picture, you need to see the BAD half as well. That is only reasonable. People have to be warned about the possible misuse of the system, unintentional or deliberate. Sorry.

Sure, except what you offer is none of that. What you've suggested is trivial to do away with and would be naturally lost by the simple fact you are all perfectly able to talk among yourselves: as you keep forgetting to continue with your bastardizations.

Why have a debate forum at all... Just have everyone present something (a one liner) and say "PM me"?

Because there are other topics of discussion. DET and classical FET have some topics in common; I can talk about those. On others, I can let people know that what they think is a catch-all disproof is temporary.
For people who don't want to take the time to learn the model, you'll get the same result whether I link a forum post or suggest a PM chat. Actually the former would go worse, because that way they'd come away with a misrepresentation.

Unlike you, I am not afraid of "peer review" of my topics. Yes, there have been trolls (Testify, WeissEdel) and disinterested parties - no doubt. On the whole though, people have seen through my threads what the arguments are. Some other peoples threads probably piggy-backed off mine. Some of mine piggy-backed off of others. This is how ideas grow.

Yes, and you're a REer so you're not subject to peer review, you're subject to mindless agreement. Peer review works only if it is among peers: that is, people who understand the model and aren't trolling. That's impossible without a PM system allowing people to actually understand the model.

Quote

Quote

Now... getting back to the topic of this thread... Any FEer want to explain how to align a telescope with an equatorial mount on your FE model?

Long since done, you just chose to ignore it.

This thread is 1 page long... where?

Try my first post where I directly responded. You just ignored the point completely, repeated the question without even trying to respond to me, and then started complaining about my PM system apropos of nothing.

Quote

So you say... And if they PM you, how will I know what was discussed? This was my point in my post above.

Yes, so I say. Do you have anything other than being a paranoid nut to bring to this conversation?
How would you know? Easy, ask them. if their refutation goes anywhere, they'd likely post that I had no answer. if it didn't, DET stands.

Sure, except what you offer is none of that. What you've suggested is trivial to do away with and would be naturally lost by the simple fact you are all perfectly able to talk among yourselves: as you keep forgetting to continue with your bastardizations.

Because there are other topics of discussion. DET and classical FET have some topics in common; I can talk about those. On others, I can let people know that what they think is a catch-all disproof is temporary.
For people who don't want to take the time to learn the model, you'll get the same result whether I link a forum post or suggest a PM chat. Actually the former would go worse, because that way they'd come away with a misrepresentation.

OK, I will do just that. I will start a new thread for people who have read your DET (I have) and we can discuss it there.

Yes, and you're a REer so you're not subject to peer review, you're subject to mindless agreement. Peer review works only if it is among peers: that is, people who understand the model and aren't trolling. That's impossible without a PM system allowing people to actually understand the model.

Actually, there are lots of FEers debating RE topics. In fact, most threads derail/devolve into trying to disprove RE concepts rather than debating how FE handles them.

Quote

If you are observing point A from point B, there are two variables. You alter point A when comparing FE and RE: you change the world from a sphere to a plane. You don't alter point B, however: you appear to keep the heavens behaving the exact same between the two models. That's where the flaw in your argument is.

Try my first post where I directly responded. You just ignored the point completely, repeated the question without even trying to respond to me, and then started complaining about my PM system apropos of nothing.

Basically, I have no idea what you mean by your first response. All I got from that is if you go from being a sphere to something else the sky changes. However it changes, what we observe (sky rotating around the observer) and do to observe it (alignment based on latitudes) remains the same. The model doesn't change reality.

Being that this thread is about Equatorial Alignment. As I pointed out in the OP, we observe that a telescope needs to be aligned parallel to the axis of the sphere/disk/dual planes (the imaginary line between the N.Pole and S.Pole and its extensions in the sky - N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) - the centers of star trails). This is accomplished by setting it equal to the latitude of the observer. It works on a sphere. It does not work on a disk.

How does it work on dual flat planes? Can you demonstrate how the telescope would point directly up (90 deg) at the N. Pole, directly horizontal (0 deg) on the equator, and say 40 deg in Denver or New York pointing at the NCP? On a sphere, the NCP is infinitely far away. On a disk, the NCP is not infinitely away but only a few 1000 miles up. How high is it on DET and at what angle would you have to view it from Denver and the equator? I assume, because of symmetry, the SCP would work the same way.

Actually, there are lots of FEers debating RE topics. In fact, most threads derail/devolve into trying to disprove RE concepts rather than debating how FE handles them.

Part of peer review is acknowledging peers. When you do that, maybe you'll have a point.

Basically, I have no idea what you mean by your first response. All I got from that is if you go from being a sphere to something else the sky changes. However it changes, what we observe (sky rotating around the observer) and do to observe it (alignment based on latitudes) remains the same. The model doesn't change reality.

Reality doesn't change, yes: what's your point? You're only changing half the model.
The differences between RET and FET are more than just the shape of the Earth. Many more things alter: you seem to have decided only so alter the shape of the Earth. What we observe does alter if you transition from one moded to another: what we see in reality doesn't change, the model does.

Being that this thread is about Equatorial Alignment. As I pointed out in the OP, we observe that a telescope needs to be aligned parallel to the axis of the sphere/disk/dual planes (the imaginary line between the N.Pole and S.Pole and its extensions in the sky - N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) - the centers of star trails). This is accomplished by setting it equal to the latitude of the observer. It works on a sphere. It does not work on a disk.

It does not work on a disk because it does not need to. As you've pointed out, the heavens are not the exact same when you switch from RET to FET. Why is this hard to grasp?

Imagine for a moment we can teleport between the two different models. In RET we stand at point A, and observe an object at B. Then we move to FET, and we still stand at A: if the RET laws were the same, we would need to look at a more extreme angle. However, they are not: B is behaving differently, so we must observe it by different means. Hence, a different angle.

How high is it on DET and at what angle would you have to view it from Denver and the equator? I assume, because of symmetry, the SCP would work the same way.

Who cares? You know the numbers, reality isn't altering, this is irrelevant to your quetsion.

My quote:

Being that this thread is about Equatorial Alignment. As I pointed out in the OP, we observe that a telescope needs to be aligned parallel to the axis of the sphere/disk/dual planes (the imaginary line between the N.Pole and S.Pole and its extensions in the sky - N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) - the centers of star trails). This is accomplished by setting it equal to the latitude of the observer. It works on a sphere. It does not work on a disk.

Your quotes:

It does not work on a disk because it does not need to.

Hence, a different angle.

Actually it does. People setting up equatorially mounted telescopes must set them to their latitudes regardless of model (RE, FE, DE, HE, CE, whatever - the telescope doesn't care). In Denver, I set my telescope to 40 deg before I would turn the motor on and view/photograph the sky. That must match in all Earth models if they represent the Earth and are valid.

Obviously you never set up a telescope with an equatorial mount. I suggest you go to an Astronomy Club/Party in your area, planetarium, borrow one from someone or buy one and try it. I have done this hundreds of times. Millions of astronomers do this and have done this over the years in both hemispheres. Your model needs to demonstrate this or it is no good.

Quote

How high is it on DET and at what angle would you have to view it from Denver and the equator? I assume, because of symmetry, the SCP would work the same way.

Who cares? You know the numbers, reality isn't altering, this is irrelevant to your question.

I calculated this once for a UFET. IIRC, I had a figure like 2300 mi above the N. Pole using Miami and Denver as the points. This is totally relevant as it mathematically proves whether the model is sound. If the numbers don't match, the model doesn't work. Or... does the DET change the latitudes of cities and celestial coordinates of stars to some new values? is that your point?

The numbers actually match if the Earth is a sphere. Keep in mind, I am not assuming the Earth is a sphere first. I can set up a telescope and tell you what my angle is anywhere on Earth. Any model that claims to represent the Earth then needs to match that. It is like travel times by boat in the S. hemisphere. If the boat trip takes 3 days, it can not go 3500-4400 mi. This is a direct disproof of the UFET but matches the 1400 mi on a RE model. It also needs to match the DE model if it is valid.

Actually it does. People setting up equatorially mounted telescopes must set them to their latitudes regardless of model (RE, FE, DE, HE, CE, whatever - the telescope doesn't care). In Denver, I set my telescope to 40 deg before I would turn the motor on and view/photograph the sky. That must match in all Earth models if they represent the Earth and are valid.

Obviously you never set up a telescope with an equatorial mount. I suggest you go to an Astronomy Club/Party in your area, planetarium, borrow one from someone or buy one and try it. I have done this hundreds of times. Millions of astronomers do this and have done this over the years in both hemispheres. Your model needs to demonstrate this or it is no good.

Again, the principle you are referring to does not work because it does not need to. It's a completely different principle, one I explained. Why are you struggling with the fact that the heavens are different? Are you purposefully just outright ignoring me?

I calculated this once for a UFET. IIRC, I had a figure like 2300 mi above the N. Pole using Miami and Denver as the points. This is totally relevant as it mathematically proves whether the model is sound. If the numbers don't match, the model doesn't work. Or... does the DET change the latitudes of cities and celestial coordinates of stars to some new values? is that your point?

The stars are in a different position, yes. This should be pretty obvious: and of course latitudes will vary if you're not on a sphere. Why is this a surprise to you? I've literally been saying it since my first post.

The numbers actually match if the Earth is a sphere. Keep in mind, I am not assuming the Earth is a sphere first. I can set up a telescope and tell you what my angle is anywhere on Earth. Any model that claims to represent the Earth then needs to match that. It is like travel times by boat in the S. hemisphere. If the boat trip takes 3 days, it can not go 3500-4400 mi. This is a direct disproof of the UFET but matches the 1400 mi on a RE model. It also needs to match the DE model if it is valid.

Yes, you are assuming the Earth is a sphere because you are assuming the RE model of the heavens. This is not accurate. How many times do I need to tell you this for it to sink in?
Analogous trips in the N and S hemiplanes will take the same length of time under the DE model. You should know this.