Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 05, 2015, 06:26:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 05, 2015, 05:06:50 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 05, 2015, 05:02:26 AM

If you don't know them, how can you make an assertion/claim that FEFs can do it?

You're the one asserting we cannot. This is your thread: your claim of falsification. Stop evading.

I am doing exactly that. Perhaps you don't understand. My hypothesis is "You do not know what the requirements for aligning telescopes are. Therefore, your claim that any FE model (DEF) can align them is false".

To test this hypothesis, I ask you - "What are the requirements for aligning a telescope?"

If you can not provide them, ALL FE models (including DEF) are false.

None of that even remotely begins to follow. I've given you an answer, you have not refuted it: and regardless, this is irrelevant.

Prove that FET can not provide any explanation for the alignment of telescopes. Don't prove FEers don't know how: even if that were true, it doesn't imply it can't be done. That's not how anything works.

Stop evading the question. You've claimed you can falsify FET, hurry up and falsify.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 05, 2015, 07:58:04 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 05, 2015, 06:26:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 05, 2015, 05:06:50 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 05, 2015, 05:02:26 AM

If you don't know them, how can you make an assertion/claim that FEFs can do it?

You're the one asserting we cannot. This is your thread: your claim of falsification. Stop evading.

I am doing exactly that. Perhaps you don't understand. My hypothesis is "You do not know what the requirements for aligning telescopes are. Therefore, your claim that any FE model (DEF) can align them is false".

To test this hypothesis, I ask you - "What are the requirements for aligning a telescope?"

If you can not provide them, ALL FE models (including DEF) are false.

None of that even remotely begins to follow. I've given you an answer, you have not refuted it: and regardless, this is irrelevant.

Prove that FET can not provide any explanation for the alignment of telescopes. Don't prove FEers don't know how: even if that were true, it doesn't imply it can't be done. That's not how anything works.

Stop evading the question. You've claimed you can falsify FET, hurry up and falsify.

You have demonstrated you don't know the requirements of aligning telescopes, stop saying DEF can do it.

• What are the requirements for aligning telescopes?
• How are the alignment angles calculated using DEF?
• What are the angles for Chicago, IL; London, UK; Sydney, Australia?

Prove that FET can not provide any explanation for the alignment of telescopes. Don't prove FEers don't know how: even if that were true, it doesn't imply it can't be done. That's not how anything works.

Stop evading the question. You've claimed you can falsify FET, hurry up and falsify.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 05, 2015, 07:58:04 AM

Prove that FET can not provide any explanation for the alignment of telescopes. Don't prove FEers don't know how: even if that were true, it doesn't imply it can't be done. That's not how anything works.

Stop evading the question. You've claimed you can falsify FET, hurry up and falsify.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 05, 2015, 07:58:04 AM

Prove that FET can not provide any explanation for the alignment of telescopes. Don't prove FEers don't know how: even if that were true, it doesn't imply it can't be done. That's not how anything works.

Stop evading the question. You've claimed you can falsify FET, hurry up and falsify.

If you ignore all theories what do measurements and observations show the shape of the earth to be.  eg. movement of sun and measurement from many locations at different times of day.

You can't falsify "Dual Earth Theory" for the same reason you can't falsify "The Wizard of Oz".

Quote

How do you align telescopes in DEF?

By altering the angle with respect to the relative vertical positions of the stars: distances far more relevant to the closer stars under DET.

10 pages long thread that contains mostly trash talk by JRowe avoiding most questions and insulting everyone that disagrees with him.

Quote

If you ignore all theories what do measurements and observations show the shape of the earth to be.  eg. movement of sun and measurement from many locations at different times of day.

They don't show anything. you need a theory in order to interpret observations: just because you're biased towards RET doesn't change that.

Quote

You can't falsify "Dual Earth Theory" for the same reason you can't falsify "The Wizard of Oz".

Patently false. There are countless ways to can falsify DET, try the search function sometime. the fact it has not been falsified does not mean it is unfalsifiable.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 07, 2015, 06:12:45 AM

Quote

If you ignore all theories what do measurements and observations show the shape of the earth to be.  eg. movement of sun and measurement from many locations at different times of day.

They don't show anything. you need a theory in order to interpret observations: just because you're biased towards RET doesn't change that.

Quote

You can't falsify "Dual Earth Theory" for the same reason you can't falsify "The Wizard of Oz".

Patently false. There are countless ways to can falsify DET, try the search function sometime. the fact it has not been falsified does not mean it is unfalsifiable.

Some simple maths can show the relative locations of the observers.  No theory needed.  Then you can draw a conclusion.

Quote from: inquisitive on December 08, 2015, 12:15:38 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 07, 2015, 06:12:45 AM

Quote

If you ignore all theories what do measurements and observations show the shape of the earth to be.  eg. movement of sun and measurement from many locations at different times of day.

They don't show anything. you need a theory in order to interpret observations: just because you're biased towards RET doesn't change that.

Quote

You can't falsify "Dual Earth Theory" for the same reason you can't falsify "The Wizard of Oz".

Patently false. There are countless ways to can falsify DET, try the search function sometime. the fact it has not been falsified does not mean it is unfalsifiable.

Some simple maths can show the relative locations of the observers.  No theory needed.  Then you can draw a conclusion.

Only true if you make certain assumptions: such as a straight path of light. You rely on a theory to say anything for certain about the world: that's an objective fact, regardless of model. Stop presupposing RET.

Hilarious. How long have you been evading justifying your claim that this falsifies FET?

Given all you just said was yet more evasion and dishonest whining about the fact I have limited resources, this argument seems perfectly at home in the bullshit pile most of what you spew ends up in. Let me know when you're going to justify your claims.

this argument seems perfectly at home in the bullshit pile most of what you spew ends up in. Let me know when you're going to justify your claims.

Let's start with that assumption.  Seems to work.

Like 0 seconds.

Since you are unable to answer questions, you insult and do trash talking, that quote perfectly matches your style of discussion in this thread.

If you like trash talking, go ahead.

I would like to know how FE/DE models align telescopes. If you cannot provide detailed answer, stop wasting people's time.

Quote

Like 0 seconds.

Read the thread. So far it's ten pages and all Jadyyn did was assert the claim that this falsifies FET, and instead of justifyng that he evaded and asked a separate question.

Quote

Since you are unable to answer questions, you insult and do trash talking, that quote perfectly matches your style of discussion in this thread.

If you like trash talking, go ahead.

I would like to know how FE/DE models align telescopes. If you cannot provide detailed answer, stop wasting people's time.

I will insult when that's all the content involved in the thread. I answered this on page one. All you're whining about is the fact I don't have billions of dollars worth of resources to map out the stars in detail. You're the one so obsessed with this trivial argument, come back when you can actually falsify DET with it rather than asserting.

Any honest argument forthcoming, or just more whinging? If you don't like to be insulted, don't act like a fuckwit.

Insulting is against rules. I am not whining. If asking a question = whining, then you should really check your dictionary once again. Also, I am not demanding resources, in fact it would suffice to present a theoretical approach to the problem. Jadyyn has shown this for RE model with all the explaination. Can you do that? I would like something more than hand-waving that I quoted few posts earlier.

if you have any actual issues with it beyond "It's not exactly the same as RET, I don't like it!" you'll be doing far better than jadyyn, who I note still seems to be spamming me despite knowing he's blocked.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 09, 2015, 10:14:56 AM

if you have any actual issues with it beyond "It's not exactly the same as RET, I don't like it!" you'll be doing far better than jadyyn, who I note still seems to be spamming me despite knowing he's blocked.

I do not have any such issues. I enter the problem from zero and consider all assumptions, evidence etc. Please do not treat me like everyone else.

I do not see you answering my questions about alignment. Since you are the best source of it (when it comes to DE model), you should be able to present at least a theoretical approach.

Avoiding quetions asked directly to you is not a good style of discussion.  If you have no answer that can satisfy us, why are you here?

I've explicitly answered the quetsion and told you where you can find that answer. if you're too lazy to read, why should I waste time repeating myself?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 10, 2015, 01:53:00 PM

I've explicitly answered the quetsion and told you where you can find that answer. if you're too lazy to read, why should I waste time repeating myself?

Please provide a direct quote/link to the place where you explained in details how to align telescope in DE model. You do not need to repeat yourself for that. No hand-waving. Something that works, at least in theory (so you are not forced to spend billions on experiments).

I am not lazy. I just cannot find the answer. These are two different things.

It would be easier to find anything in this thread provided you were actually answering questions, which you successfuly avoided from the beginning through multiple pages. Partial answeres like the one I quoted one page earlier are not exact, they are just rough, most-likely made up on fly, ideas. Ideas that I cannot give a credit since they miss the entire point of this thread.

So I am asking nicely. If you can quote/link the answer, I will appreciate. If not, do not expect I will believe DE has an answer to this problem, even though I read your sketch of DE model.

We are dealing with a phenomenon based on the observation of the stars, from the Earth: what matters is the explanation for what it is we observe.
Now, there can be two explanations for what we see. Under RET, ultimately it is the shape and movement of the Earth. However, this would not be the sole possible explanation for alignment over all models.
We could also have, for example, the movements of the stars, and the shape of constellations, being different to that which is expected from RET.
Is this understood so far?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 11, 2015, 05:07:53 AM

We are dealing with a phenomenon based on the observation of the stars, from the Earth: what matters is the explanation for what it is we observe.
Now, there can be two explanations for what we see. Under RET, ultimately it is the shape and movement of the Earth. However, this would not be the sole possible explanation for alignment over all models.
We could also have, for example, the movements of the stars, and the shape of constellations, being different to that which is expected from RET.
Is this understood so far?

It is.

The rest follows simply. In order to explain the reason we align telescope, with an altered Earth shape, it would clearly be down to the relative positions of the Sun.
Under DET, they rotate: what matters is that our telescopes align with the axis of rotation of the stars. That is, it is pointed at the right angle to align: this is based on what is essentially the altitude of the stars. under RET, this is scarcely a variable: they're simply distant. Under DET, they are much closer.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 12, 2015, 02:04:25 AM

The rest follows simply. In order to explain the reason we align telescope, with an altered Earth shape, it would clearly be down to the relative positions of the Sun.
Under DET, they rotate: what matters is that our telescopes align with the axis of rotation of the stars. That is, it is pointed at the right angle to align: this is based on what is essentially the altitude of the stars. under RET, this is scarcely a variable: they're simply distant. Under DET, they are much closer.

Can you rewrite this in a different way with a bit more details? I cannot understand what you are trying to say. The last sentence says that stars are much closer. How far are they and how does the distance change anything (if it changes anything)?