Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment

Quote from: Brouwer on December 13, 2015, 12:36:51 AM

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)?

I don't have the resources to give the exact distance, but the alteration is clear. If you rotate a set of objects with a meaningful variation in relative altitude, then viewing from a different location will alter what you see: hence the need for alignment.

All I can say is IF the stars have a variation in relative altitude, that is true and telescopes would need to be aligned differently - all true. But IF they did have variations, photos from around the world would shift the stars (especially if they are close - parallax-wise). Back up this claim. Please demonstrate photos of stars shifting based on an observer's location.

"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."

We could theoretically, but can you show that we actually do?

(1) Please demonstrate the "movements of the stars".
(2) If stars had a variation in altitude, the shape of the constellations, as viewed/photographed from various places, would be different. Please demonstrate one constellation that changes based on an observer's location.

Unless you can provide photos of the stars in the sky changing based on an observer's position, the discussion above is nice, but doesn't have anything to do with reality.

BTW, the reason under RET that we align telescopes is to follow the stars for viewing/photographing with 1 motor - not because the sky changes somehow.

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.

You are already using your scope on a flat plane. Your only change is that you do not have to use the ball  Earth aiming data. Just convert the data to the flat Earth and it works the same, but without the error the ball Earth puts into it.

Ball people show me the ball Earth curve. There is no physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. No curve not a ball, not a ball you can not call the Earth a sphere. The Earth is and always has been a flat plane.

I don't have the resources to give the exact distance, but the alteration is clear. If you rotate a set of objects with a meaningful variation in relative altitude, then viewing from a different location will alter what you see: hence the need for alignment.

That answers the least important question...

You are already using your scope on a flat plane. Your only change is that you do not have to use the ball  Earth aiming data. Just convert the data to the flat Earth and it works the same, but without the error the ball Earth puts into it.

What error is put into it? How to convert the data? Where is the data for FE model?

Ball people show me the ball Earth curve. There is no physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. No curve not a ball, not a ball you can not call the Earth a sphere. The Earth is and always has been a flat plane.

Do you have a macro for this? Because you put the same words to different threads, some of which are unrelated to the RE.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 13, 2015, 02:21:56 AM

I don't have the resources to give the exact distance, but the alteration is clear. If you rotate a set of objects with a meaningful variation in relative altitude, then viewing from a different location will alter what you see: hence the need for alignment.

That answers the least important question...

Are you going to be any more specific, or are we done? I answered your questions of how far the stars were, and how this would cause variations in angle to observe. Are you going to say what's not good enough, or are you taking Jadyyn's tactic and evading?

You are already using your scope on a flat plane. Your only change is that you do not have to use the ball  Earth aiming data. Just convert the data to the flat Earth and it works the same, but without the error the ball Earth puts into it.

Actually, you are wrong with everything you just said.

We need to align telescopes to the axis of rotation of the sky so 1 motor tracks the sky. On a flat disk, the axis runs from the N.Pole to the true S.Pole, below the N.Pole (under the disk). Since the disk by definition is flat, everywhere on the disk the alignment must point straight up to be parallel to the axis. Telescopes are not aligned like that. They are aligned by the latitude (RET) of the observer. So, FE models can not align telescopes BECAUSE they are FLAT.

Unless you can demonstrate why a telescope on the equator is aligned horizontally, your argument fails.

Just read through this entire thread and, it must be said, JRowe was utterly destroyed by Jadyyn. Like...

D
E
S
T
R
O
Y
E
D

JRowe used nothing but stalling and strawman tactics in order to avoid giving any specific information regarding telescope alignment on a DE. He gave absolutely nothing. Credit must be given to him in that he knows that if he were to give any definitive answer to any of the questions asked, he would be shown to be wrong and his purported fantasy model debunked.

So, far better to stall and claim that the 'skies are different for DEF and RET' than to be pinned down by things like mathematics, science and, you know, things that work in the real world (equatorial alignment).

DEF, although nothing but ad lib puerile nonsense shat out by JRowe, has been thoroughly destroyed in this thread moreso than any other thread on this site (IMO). It has been shown that equatorial alignment can ONLY work with a RE model. If JRowe disputes this, he needs to present actual evidence and not more endless blathering about his theory (sic) and how no one understands it.

Good job, Jadyyn.

JRowe used nothing but stalling and strawman tactics in order to avoid giving any specific information regarding telescope alignment on a DE. He gave absolutely nothing.

Jadyyn claimed to have falsified all FE models. He should be able to do so regardless of my response. He was the one that was stalling: asking and insisting on a question unrelated to his actual claim. Please try again, and note that he offered no explanation whatsoever beyond his insistence that the RE model was true.

Credit must be given to him in that he knows that if he were to give any definitive answer to any of the questions asked, he would be shown to be wrong and his purported fantasy model debunked.
So, far better to stall and claim that the 'skies are different for DEF and RET' than to be pinned down by things like mathematics, science and, you know, things that work in the real world (equatorial alignment).

So "An answer was given, but i'm just going to claim otherwise and persist in holding the DE model to an impossible standard."

It has been shown that equatorial alignment can ONLY work with a RE model.

Where? I've seen it asserted, that's all. How about you provide a quote where this was shown? And by shown, I mean more than asserted. Simply because the RE explanation works does not make it the only one. But of course, acknowledging that would require an honest argument from you.

If JRowe disputes this, he needs to present actual evidence and not more endless blathering about his theory (sic) and how no one understands it.

That's not how logic works. If you're trying to show something can work only in one model, you need to show that it can work only in that model. I can't dispute something that has never been shown in this thread. There's nothing to dispute.

Good job, Jadyyn.

Or maybe you could pay attention and make an honest argument rather than blabbering on blindly in favor of an REer for no reason beyond closed-mindedness.

Jadyyn claimed to have falsified all FE models. He should be able to do so regardless of my response. He was the one that was stalling: asking and insisting on a question unrelated to his actual claim. Please try again, and note that he offered no explanation whatsoever beyond his insistence that the RE model was true.

No explanation? Unrelated questions to his claims? Total gibberish. Anyone who reads this threads knows this is demonstrably untrue (funny how everyone accuses you of the exact same things.. perhaps we're all lying?).

He responded, multiple times, as to why aligning telescoping alignment as it works in the real-world only works for a RE model and is untenable on any flat-disk type models. Your rebuttal? Hand-waving, non-sequitars and some argument akin to 'the skies are different in DEF to RET'. Nothing beyond that.

You offered absolutely zero real-world examples of how telescope equatorial alignment works on a DE, thus you failed to substantiate your claim that DEF works for this. You failed and your ab lib model fails. Jadyyn doesn't need to go any further other than demonstrating that alignment works perfectly in the real-world. You, on the other hand, must demonstrate how this is possible for your DEF, which you haven't. At all. In any way.

So "An answer was given, but i'm just going to claim otherwise and persist in holding the DE model to an impossible standard."

No no, general hand-waving and incoherent waffle was offered up in lieu of an answer, but nothing else. He laid out, multiple times, simple questions for which you spectacularly failed to answer in any meaningful way.

Also, what 'impossible standard' are you referring to? You understand that all of this works in real life and isn't just theoretical conjecture, right? Are you about to claim that you aren't able to offer any substantive argument against this problem because you don't have 'billions of dollars' to spare on research/experiments? What utter nonsense.

Where? I've seen it asserted, that's all. How about you provide a quote where this was shown? And by shown, I mean more than asserted. Simply because the RE explanation works does not make it the only one. But of course, acknowledging that would require an honest argument from you.

As Jadyyn correctly stated, this is a geometry problem. Unless you can show the DEF can have the properties of a sphere, it's all on you. Again.

That's not how logic works. If you're trying to show something can work only in one model, you need to show that it can work only in that model. I can't dispute something that has never been shown in this thread. There's nothing to dispute.

Again, by showing how this works in the real-world by countless amateur and professional astronomers, Jadyyn or anyone else doesn't have to show it only works for one model. We only need to show how it works in the real-world, and ask anyone who disputes that it can work with their model, how it works with their model. You haven't done this, not even by a long shot. You sprout endlessly about 'the heavens being different' (how?) and some other waffle that doesn't make any sense ('It does not work on a disk because it does not need to'... whaaaaat?), but nothing more. We're all still waiting for something substantive, 11 pages in.

Or maybe you could pay attention and make an honest argument rather than blabbering on blindly in favor of an REer for no reason beyond closed-mindedness.

It's amazing to me how often you say the words 'honest' and 'dishonest'. It seems to me that you're projecting, JRowe.

And this has nothing to do with closed-mindedness; please stop channeling sceptimatic. For all your blather and hot air, you offer up nothing substantive other than 'it works for DEF because it works'. No explanation required apparently, and we're all supposed to take your word for it.

Seriously, if you think you have offered something in this thread like evidence that this works for DEF and how, please show us where. Perhaps we're all blind, dishonest and stupid, hence us missing it.

Thanks in advance.

He responded, multiple times, as to why aligning telescoping alignment as it works in the real-world only works for a RE model and is untenable on any flat-disk type models.

He demonstrated the RE explanation couldn't occur on a disk. Whoop-dee-doo. That wasn't his claim. Pay attention. Stop blindly backing up an REer just because they're an REer.

Also, what 'impossible standard' are you referring to? You understand that all of this works in real life and isn't just theoretical conjecture, right? Are you about to claim that you aren't able to offer any substantive argument against this problem because you don't have 'billions of dollars' to spare on research/experiments? What utter nonsense.

Not nonsense at all. I provided an answer: wanting me to map out the heavens in perfect accuracy and accurately measure the distance to the stars is a completely ridiculous ask, and you know it.

Unless you can show the DEF can have the properties of a sphere, it's all on you. Again.

I don't need to. You need to show that only a sphere would make alignment necessary, without just presupposing the RE explanation. This hasn't even been attempted.

Again, by showing how this works in the real-world by countless amateur and professional astronomers, Jadyyn or anyone else doesn't have to show it only works for one model.

Yes. You do. if you are claiming to have falsified every other model, that is EXACTLY what you need to show. All you've done is assert that the RE model and explanation is accurate. How am I to respond to an argument that doesn't exist?!

And this has nothing to do with closed-mindedness; please stop channeling sceptimatic. For all your blather and hot air, you offer up nothing substantive other than 'it works for DEF because it works'. No explanation required apparently, and we're all supposed to take your word for it.

Well, beyond an explicit answer that's already been given multiple times (altitudes), my claim is simply that DET has not been falsified. Why? Because it hasn't. Jadyyn hasn't addressed ANY model accept RET.

So stop evading, and stop wasting time. Please share how FET has been refuted. As I asked before, you need to demonstrate that non-RET models have been falsified, and that there is no alternative explanation for why we would align telescopes. All Jadyyn did was waste time with blatant assertion that only the RE explanation was possible, which is plainly absurd. there is never just one answer.
All I can see is your 'geometry problem' mention, which is bullshit that's been already addressed. That is not and was never any kind of justification: it was rooted in presupposing the RE model. That's all that exists in this thread. Nothing more than your presupposition.

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:42:09 PM

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

So, now you're spamming the forum with meaningless posts, whinging and a lack of any substance whatsoever? And I thought REers pretended to be smart...

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:45:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:42:09 PM

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

So, now you're spamming the forum with meaningless posts, whinging and a lack of any substance whatsoever? And I thought REers pretended to be smart...

Wow, twice in a row!!

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:46:23 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:45:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:42:09 PM

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

So, now you're spamming the forum with meaningless posts, whinging and a lack of any substance whatsoever? And I thought REers pretended to be smart...

Wow, twice in a row!!

I answer questions. You're just providing meaningless mocking: as best I can tell, to dissuade people from taking the time to learn the DE model, despite the fact you have yet to provide any unrefuted argument against it, and all you do is mock. Is it really that hard to let people make up your own minds?
One could almost call you insecure. Was it so hard for you to accept not being able to refute an FE model?

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:47:38 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:46:23 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:45:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:42:09 PM

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

So, now you're spamming the forum with meaningless posts, whinging and a lack of any substance whatsoever? And I thought REers pretended to be smart...

Wow, twice in a row!!

I answer questions. You're just providing meaningless mocking: as best I can tell, to dissuade people from taking the time to learn the DE model, despite the fact you have yet to provide any unrefuted argument against it, and all you do is mock. Is it really that hard to let people make up your own minds?
One could almost call you insecure. Was it so hard for you to accept not being able to refute an FE model?

You provide no answers and insult and slander anyone that questions you. You can you say you answer questions all day long but that will never make that statement true.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:51:33 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:47:38 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:46:23 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:45:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:42:09 PM

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

So, now you're spamming the forum with meaningless posts, whinging and a lack of any substance whatsoever? And I thought REers pretended to be smart...

Wow, twice in a row!!

I answer questions. You're just providing meaningless mocking: as best I can tell, to dissuade people from taking the time to learn the DE model, despite the fact you have yet to provide any unrefuted argument against it, and all you do is mock. Is it really that hard to let people make up your own minds?
One could almost call you insecure. Was it so hard for you to accept not being able to refute an FE model?

You provide no answers and insult and slander anyone that questions you. You can you say you answer questions all day long but that will never make that statement true.

To me, it seems like you just ignore and lie. You have yet to justify a single one of your claims. The only time I insult is when I get tired of dealing with timewasting penguins like you who are inacapble of doing anything except mock and lie. Insecure much?

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:53:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:51:33 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:47:38 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:46:23 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:45:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:42:09 PM

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

So, now you're spamming the forum with meaningless posts, whinging and a lack of any substance whatsoever? And I thought REers pretended to be smart...

Wow, twice in a row!!

I answer questions. You're just providing meaningless mocking: as best I can tell, to dissuade people from taking the time to learn the DE model, despite the fact you have yet to provide any unrefuted argument against it, and all you do is mock. Is it really that hard to let people make up your own minds?
One could almost call you insecure. Was it so hard for you to accept not being able to refute an FE model?

You provide no answers and insult and slander anyone that questions you. You can you say you answer questions all day long but that will never make that statement true.

To me, it seems like you just ignore and lie. You have yet to justify a single one of your claims. The only time I insult is when I get tired of dealing with timewasting penguins like you who are inacapble of doing anything except mock and lie. Insecure much?

Lol, no. But you must be because the things you keep saying apply to only you here.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:55:19 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:53:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:51:33 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:47:38 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:46:23 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:45:30 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:42:09 PM

Nothing more than your presupposition.

Pot calling the kettle black...

So, now you're spamming the forum with meaningless posts, whinging and a lack of any substance whatsoever? And I thought REers pretended to be smart...

Wow, twice in a row!!

I answer questions. You're just providing meaningless mocking: as best I can tell, to dissuade people from taking the time to learn the DE model, despite the fact you have yet to provide any unrefuted argument against it, and all you do is mock. Is it really that hard to let people make up your own minds?
One could almost call you insecure. Was it so hard for you to accept not being able to refute an FE model?

You provide no answers and insult and slander anyone that questions you. You can you say you answer questions all day long but that will never make that statement true.

To me, it seems like you just ignore and lie. You have yet to justify a single one of your claims. The only time I insult is when I get tired of dealing with timewasting penguins like you who are inacapble of doing anything except mock and lie. Insecure much?

Lol, no. But you must be because the things you keep saying apply to only you here.

"I know you are but what am I!"
Grow the fuck up.

So, getting back to how this works on an actual accepted FE model.

Well, beyond an explicit answer that's already been given multiple times (altitudes), my claim is simply that DET has not been falsified. Why? Because it hasn't. Jadyyn hasn't addressed ANY model accept RET.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64697.msg1727563#msg1727563
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64697.msg1729357#msg1729357

Just ignore JRoweSkeptic. In 13 pages, no actual measurements, just derailing, insults. The DE FANTASY is only in his mind. No amount of proof will change it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64697.msg1735459#msg1735459

My answers destroy FE models. JRowe just doesn't want to believe it and offers only BS hand-waving with no evidence. Then HE calls people liars.

I tried to be reasonable. I pointed out many times where in the model is flawed but I guess he won't accept it.

I tried to be reasonable. I pointed out many times where in the model is flawed but I guess he won't accept it.

You pointed out straw men and insisted Relativity wasn't true. I'm not going to accept baseless assertion from a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 20, 2015, 05:58:12 PM

I tried to be reasonable. I pointed out many times where in the model is flawed but I guess he won't accept it.

You pointed out straw men and insisted Relativity wasn't true. I'm not going to accept baseless assertion from a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Then why do you accept your theory?

budum tiss*
I'm here all week!

Someone close this thread, for god's sake, it's a troll thread from start to finish.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 20, 2015, 05:58:12 PM

I tried to be reasonable. I pointed out many times where in the model is flawed but I guess he won't accept it.

You pointed out straw men and insisted Relativity wasn't true. I'm not going to accept baseless assertion from a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

My point is always that DEF Aether has to be shown to be Relativity aether - NOT just as a starting basis. Once you pile on all the other properties on it, those properties need to be demonstrated (1) that Aether can do them and (2) Relativity aether can do them.

If Relativity can demonstrate elephants exist and if you add the property that animals fly (elephant is an animal), then saying the DEF elephant can fly as demonstrated by Relativity and applying a "universal property of animals" is true! This logic demonstrates Relativity elephants fly and so do DEF ones!

Regardless of this, DEF has never demonstrated aligning telescopes, even on the equators (the model only knows where the poles and equators are). It has to demonstrate why on a FLAT disk, telescopes on the equator are horizontal.

He demonstrated the RE explanation couldn't occur on a disk. Whoop-dee-doo. That wasn't his claim. Pay attention. Stop blindly backing up an REer just because they're an REer.

So, more insults. Jee, we haven't see that before from you, have we? 

By the way, we're all still waiting to see how this works on a DE. Whenever you're ready, old chap..

Not nonsense at all. I provided an answer: wanting me to map out the heavens in perfect accuracy and accurately measure the distance to the stars is a completely ridiculous ask, and you know it.

Map out the heavens? What are you talking about? They're already mapped out. I can find any constellation I desire (at least where I live in the southern hemisphere), at any time of the year. I can look up where Mars or Venus will be, or Jupiter or Saturn. Wherever, whenever. How does this change if we all of a sudden find out we're living on a dildo-shaped planet? Oh right, it doesn't. The heavens are the heavens, it doesn't care about what shaped earth we live on. You still haven't explained, in any meaningful way, why the heavens would be different on a DE. I only saw some vague gibberish about the heavens being viewed differently from an external frame of reference... which still doesn't make any sense.

Do you care to explain this?

I don't need to. You need to show that only a sphere would make alignment necessary, without just presupposing the RE explanation. This hasn't even been attempted.

Um, no. Again. This works in the real world, this isn't theoretical. You have to demonstrate how it would work as per your fantasy- erm, I mean, *model*. We know it works for a RE, no presuppositions required. Now, how does it work for a DE?

Whenever you're ready...

Yes. You do. if you are claiming to have falsified every other model, that is EXACTLY what you need to show. All you've done is assert that the RE model and explanation is accurate. How am I to respond to an argument that doesn't exist?!

Ditto.

By the way, we're all still waiting to see how this works on a DE. Whenever you're ready, old chap..

Well, beyond an explicit answer that's already been given multiple times (altitudes), my claim is simply that DET has not been falsified. Why? Because it hasn't. Jadyyn hasn't addressed ANY model accept RET.

You've given no explicit answers for any question, hence everyone calling you out about it. The inference is very clear: This has been shown how it works on a RE and multiple explanations given for how it could only work on a spherical body (geometry problem, remember?). The onus, therefore, is on those who claim (you) it can and does work on other models (DEF), to show exactly how this is accomplished.

We're all still waiting..

So stop evading, and stop wasting time.

I assume you were looking into a mirror when you typed this, yea?

there is never just one answer.

Great, show us the other answers for DEF. We're all still waiting..

All I can see is your 'geometry problem' mention, which is bullshit that's been already addressed.

Oh yea, geometry is a conspiracy, isn't it? And no, you spouted nonsensical bullshit in response and haven't addressed the problem in any way. Try again.

We're all still waiting.

That is not and was never any kind of justification: it was rooted in presupposing the RE model. That's all that exists in this thread. Nothing more than your presupposition.

Any response to this is redundant (pretty much like every attempt at reasoning with you for everyone on this board).

By the way, we're all still waiting to see how this works on a DE. Whenever you're ready, old chap..

I'm not repeating myself for someone too lazy to mount an actual argument.

Do you care to explain this?

Explain your blathering? No, it was completely incoherent and I have no idea whatsoever as to what you thought that inexplicable ramble would add.
All I am saying is that multiple arrangements of stars may appear the same. For example, if you have three dots in a row, if you move one away from the observer (parallel to their line of vision), it will not appear different to the naked eye: but when viewed from an angle, the effect is clear.
When you understand that simple principle, maybe you can mount an actual argument. Then again, that would require honesty on your part.

Um, no. Again. This works in the real world, this isn't theoretical. You have to demonstrate how it would work as per your fantasy- erm, I mean, *model*. We know it works for a RE, no presuppositions required. Now, how does it work for a DE?

So, presupposing that the RE model is accurate remains all you have.
Yes, alignment works in reality. Pay attention: what matters is the reason why it works. If you are claiming to have falsified FET, you need to demonstrate the RE explanation is the only possible explanation. Can i expect even an attempt at this any time?

The onus, therefore, is on those who claim (you) it can and does work on other models (DEF), to show exactly how this is accomplished.

Nope: you're claiming falsification, you need to justify your claims, rather than whining and evading and going off an inexplicable tangents, and of course ignoring every single response that has been presented to you and Jadyyn over the course of this thread.

Oh yea, geometry is a conspiracy, isn't it? And no, you spouted nonsensical bullshit in response and haven't addressed the problem in any way. Try again.

So, a straw man and "Your response doesn't work! Because, uh, it doesn't!" Still a complete lack of anything resembling a justified claim.

Any response to this is redundant (pretty much like every attempt at reasoning with you for everyone on this board).

That sums up your contribution. Arrogant "I can't possibly be wrong! Anyone who dares question my presuppositions must be wrong, so I don't need to make an argument!" Tedious.

You know, at least sceptimatic was entertaining and tried to explain his thoughts/model. I think you ought to take some trolling lessons from him, it would make all of this much more enjoyable.

I'm not repeating myself for someone too lazy to mount an actual argument.

Looking into that mirror again, I see.

Explain your blathering? No, it was completely incoherent and I have no idea whatsoever as to what you thought that inexplicable ramble would add.

Isn't that cute? The guy who claims air doesn't exist, that fairies are real and the earth is some magic dual-earth with whirlpools of aether attempts to be derisive. Thanks for the entertainment, perhaps scepti is rubbing off on you!

All I am saying is that multiple arrangements of stars may appear the same. For example, if you have three dots in a row, if you move one away from the observer (parallel to their line of vision), it will not appear different to the naked eye: but when viewed from an angle, the effect is clear.

The problem is, as you've been told many times now, is that no one knows where anything even is in your model. I don't know where Australia is, I don't know where I could find Sigma Octanis, I don't know how far away anything is in relation to anything else. How, therefore, am I meant to make deductions about what I am observing if you can't even tell me how far away the sun is from earth, or distance between the moon and the sun, or how high up the (aether?) stars are. I haven't the foggiest clue. That makes DEF nothing more than an unfalsifiable pile of ad hoc drivel.

If that isn't true, tell us why it isn't. If you refer back to your wall of text which explain none of these details or back to your old 'lack-of-resource' arguments, it only confirms DEF to be just that.

Then again, that would require honesty on your part.

Ah, there's that word again! Projection, JR, projection!

So, presupposing that the RE model is accurate remains all you have..

So, avoiding direct questions with non-sequitars again, huh? Back to being boring.

Yes, alignment works in reality. Pay attention: what matters is the reason why it works. If you are claiming to have falsified FET, you need to demonstrate the RE explanation is the only possible explanation. Can i expect even an attempt at this any time?

Sigh. We've been over this, multiple times now. In fact, you've also been over this with Jadyyn. We don't need to prove a negative ie. that it only works for a RE. However, because it does work for a RE (in the real world, you know what that is, right?), anyone who claims it can and does work for their model must show how.

I nor anyone else don't have to falsify a fantasy model that exists only in your tiny mind, especially one so fantastical and has no basis in science.

So, once again, whenever you're ready. We're all still waiting.

Nope: you're claiming falsification, you need to justify your claims, rather than whining and evading and going off an inexplicable tangents, and of course ignoring every single response that has been presented to you and Jadyyn over the course of this thread.

Let me channel you for a moment: PAY ATTENTION IDIOT! *ahem* Everyone who reads this thread knows the one and only person not answering questions and going off on tangents is you. You may have 'responded' to a question, but you did not answer it in any meaningful way. Hence all the repetitious questions being asked of you because not a single person is satisfied with your ramblings.

So, a straw man and "Your response doesn't work! Because, uh, it doesn't!" Still a complete lack of anything resembling a justified claim.

That sums up your contribution. Arrogant "I can't possibly be wrong! Anyone who dares question my presuppositions must be wrong, so I don't need to make an argument!" Tedious.

Mirror again, yea?

TL;DR? You've answered nothing, you've substantiated nothing, you've avoided answering meaningful questions about how telescope alignment would work in your DEF and thus shown that DEF has no basis in reality where these things actually work.

Good to know even though everyone already knew that.

You know, at least sceptimatic was entertaining and tried to explain his thoughts/model. I think you ought to take some trolling lessons from him, it would make all of this much more enjoyable.

My model is linked in my sig. I see no point in wasting time repeating myself to people too lazy to click a link.

Isn't that cute? The guy who claims air doesn't exist, that fairies are real and the earth is some magic dual-earth with whirlpools of aether attempts to be derisive.

Air exists, fairies are not real, and DET is well-defined and far from magic. When you feel able to make an accurate claim, perhaps you'll have an actual argument.

If that isn't true, tell us why it isn't. If you refer back to your wall of text which explain none of these details or back to your old 'lack-of-resource' arguments, it only confirms DEF to be just that.

So "Don't use the argument that is an entirely valid response!"
Pathetic. I don't have the resources to map out the world singlehandedly, and no amount of your whinging will change that, or make demanding that I do so remotely reasonable. The DET model stands just fine.

So, avoiding direct questions with non-sequitars again, huh? Back to being boring.

And you say I'm mirroring... Still waiting for you to justify your claims of falsifying FET.

Sigh. We've been over this, multiple times now. In fact, you've also been over this with Jadyyn. We don't need to prove a negative ie. that it only works for a RE. However, because it does work for a RE (in the real world, you know what that is, right?), anyone who claims it can and does work for their model must show how.

Yes, and it remains assertion on your part. Literally your entire argument is "I think RET is true!" That is the definition of a presupposition, and useless ina ny discussion.
And if you are claiming that it only works for RET, which you are, then yes, you do very much need to justify that claim.

So, once again, whenever you're ready. We're all still waiting.

Still ignoring, you mean? I've given the answer multiple times. Altitudes. Address it for once you pathetic troll.

Everyone who reads this thread knows the one and only person not answering questions and going off on tangents is you. You may have 'responded' to a question, but you did not answer it in any meaningful way. Hence all the repetitious questions being asked of you because not a single person is satisfied with your ramblings.

If my answers are not enough, maybe you could say why rather than repeating the quetsion and expecting me to read your mind.
Oh, wait, you can't. My answers are fine and you're incapable as ever to make the slightest reasonable argument: hence your evasion, ignorance and lies.

All I am saying is that multiple arrangements of stars may appear the same. For example, if you have three dots in a row, if you move one away from the observer (parallel to their line of vision), it will not appear different to the naked eye: but when viewed from an angle, the effect is clear.
When you understand that simple principle, maybe you can mount an actual argument. Then again, that would require honesty on your part.

I realize JRowe doesn't want to see this, but this is not true. Pictures of the sky (stars and galaxies) are the same. They do not change depending on where you are on Earth (altitude of stars).

The effect may be clear on 3 dots on a piece of paper but has nothing to do with 3 stars in the sky.

I don't have the resources to map out the world singlehandedly, and no amount of your whinging will change that, or make demanding that I do so remotely reasonable. The DET model stands just fine.

As I have repeatedly said, if DEF does not know where anyone/anything is in the model, how can it claim anything (telescope alignment, what someone anywhere on Earth observes in the sky, etc.)? The DEF claim that ALL observations are evidence is totally bogus as only the location of the poles and equators is known. So... DEF simply needs to demonstrate why telescopes on the equator are aligned horizontally to view the NCP from the top hemidisk and a couple feet away view the SCP from the bottom hemidisk. Like everything in the model, this should be trivial, easy and simple.

Literally your entire argument is "I think RET is true!" That is the definition of a presupposition, and useless in any discussion.
And if you are claiming that it only works for RET, which you are, then yes, you do very much need to justify that claim.

FYI, telescopes are aligned to the NCP/SCP (and are parallel to the sky axis of rotation to be tracked by 1 motor - all requirements of alignment) based on latitudes of the observer. There are many links by telescope manufacturers, magazines, clubs and individuals stating this. It is a known FACT. When the latitudes are mapped, this demonstrates the Earth is spherical. This is the Eratosthenes Experiment in reverse all over the Earth in THOUSANDS of places. No other shape has this property that I know of. Specifically, demonstrate how a FLAT shape (relevant to DEF, UFEF models) can. Justified.

Now, how does DEF align telescopes? Demonstrate several locations on Earth and how the angles were generated.

No point adding another wall of text of JRowe's classic evasions, it would be entirely redundant.

12 pages in and we're all still waiting for a real-world example of how to align a telescope to the NCP, SCP and the axis of rotation on a DE. Apparently the heavens are different, which is demonstrably untrue, but you never expand on how they're different, you just give a non-analogous analogy.

So, in conclusion, we gather that: DEF has no answer for this real-world problem, confirmed by JRowe's hand-waving and dismissals of direct questions regarding his model, thus DEF is shown for what it is: an ad hoc fantasy.

Still refusing to address a single point I make. And you're claiming I'm the one evading...

You'd expect someone so secure in their model would be able to actually defend it honestly. Instead the answer goes blatantly ignored, and every single question is evaded. Pathetic.