[Jimmy McGill]

It is my understanding that most flat earth models have the sun/moon/stars rotating in the sky above the flat plane of the earth.

I've thought of the perfect test to debunk this, and while it doesn't prove the earth is round per se, it does definitively prove that celestial objects are traveling under and around the earth, not merely circling above it.

I implore any flat earthers out there with a modest budget to invest in a cheap EQ (equatorial mounted) telescope. Invest in one, you can probably get a cheap used one that's more than capable of doing the job for around $50. Perhaps you could borrow one from an astronomer friend or acquaintance.

Take an 30 minutes to 1 hour to learn the basics of how an equatorial mount works. Go in the back yard, properly set it up (adjust to your latitude, Polar align the scope), and train it on any celestial object, the moon, a star, a planet, preferably one that is further out from the celestial poles (The North Star Polaris for those of you in the northern hemisphere). Any planet should do. You can even do this on the sun (WITH A SOLAR FILTER!! DO NOT USE A TELESCOPE ON THE SUN WITHOUT PROPER PROTECTION)

Track the movement of the object through the night. You now only need to use the one right ascension control knob to track its movement as it travels through the heavens(Actually Space). Watch as it disappears over the horizon. Keep using the right ascension knob to project where the object goes into the future. The celestial object's path will take it directly underneath the earth.

The point of this experiment is debunk, for good, anyone who uses the nonsensical "perspective" argument. This is the easiest way to visually prove to yourself that objects aren't disappearing due to being too far away, but rather traveling underneath the earth, making a full circle around it, and coming back up on the other side.

I challenge any flat earther to accomplish this task and remain a flat earther. As I said this doesn't necessarily prove the earth is a sphere, but it does debunk any flat earth model I've ever seen. There is simply no flat earth explanation for it that exists.

Outside the bounds of the experiment, as an added bonus, once you do this experiment, train your new scope at Jupiter or Saturn. Watch as the planet obviously rotates on it's axis. Observe the moons as they transition in orbit around the parent planet. Watch the shadows they cast. Yes, you CAN see this.

 I'm introducing you to the rabbit hole that is knowledge. I beg you to go down it.

[Jimmy McGill]

To clarify....
On a flat earth wherein the celestial objects rotate above the plane of the earth, your telescope's movement should reflect that. According to "perspective" the path your telescope (and celestial object) should take would be to go to the horizon, stay there (apparently), and travel in a straight line, as the object circles above the planet, back toward where the object reappears the next night.

This experiment FIRMLY debunks any such nonsense.

[George Jetson]

To clarify....
On a flat earth wherein the celestial objects rotate above the plane of the earth, your telescope's movement should reflect that. According to "perspective" the path your telescope (and celestial object) should take would be to go to the horizon, stay there (apparently), and travel in a straight line, as the object circles above the planet, back toward where the object reappears the next night.

This experiment FIRMLY debunks any such nonsense.

You'll have to elaborate.  All I see are nebulous claims with no logical or mathematical reasoning to back them up.  Why "should" the celestial bodies do what you say they should.  I'm not saying your wrong, just vague.

[Tom Bishop]

Equatorial Mounts merely compensate for the movement of the stars.

[Jimmy McGill]

To clarify....
On a flat earth wherein the celestial objects rotate above the plane of the earth, your telescope's movement should reflect that. According to "perspective" the path your telescope (and celestial object) should take would be to go to the horizon, stay there (apparently), and travel in a straight line, as the object circles above the planet, back toward where the object reappears the next night.

This experiment FIRMLY debunks any such nonsense.

You'll have to elaborate.  All I see are nebulous claims with no logical or mathematical reasoning to back them up.  Why "should" the celestial bodies do what you say they should.  I'm not saying your wrong, just vague.

Nebulous claims? Vague? My argument is based on sound logic. I've invited you to get the EQ telescope mount and do it yourself. As I said, its cheap and easy to do. Educate yourself on how it works. Takes an hour. I can post literature on EQ mounts here if anyone would like.

With 100% accuracy, the properly set-up EQ mount will track the movement of a star, planet, etc. across the sky, from one horizon to the other. If you keep moving the mount full circle (dipping down pointing toward the earth's core) until its pointing at the opposite that the object sank below, it will reappear in that precise spot the next night, thus proving the telescope's accuracy and that the stars are traveling under the earth, not above it in a circle.

If you thought anything in my post was vague, idk what to tell you.

[George Jetson]

To clarify....
On a flat earth wherein the celestial objects rotate above the plane of the earth, your telescope's movement should reflect that. According to "perspective" the path your telescope (and celestial object) should take would be to go to the horizon, stay there (apparently), and travel in a straight line, as the object circles above the planet, back toward where the object reappears the next night.

This experiment FIRMLY debunks any such nonsense.

You'll have to elaborate.  All I see are nebulous claims with no logical or mathematical reasoning to back them up.  Why "should" the celestial bodies do what you say they should.  I'm not saying your wrong, just vague.

Nebulous claims? Vague? My argument is based on sound logic. I've invited you to get the EQ telescope mount and do it yourself. As I said, its cheap and easy to do. Educate yourself on how it works. Takes an hour. I can post literature on EQ mounts here if anyone would like.

With 100% accuracy, the properly set-up EQ mount will track the movement of a star, planet, etc. across the sky, from one horizon to the other. If you keep moving the mount full circle (dipping down pointing toward the earth's core) until its pointing at the opposite that the object sank below, it will reappear in that precise spot the next night, thus proving the telescope's accuracy and that the stars are traveling under the earth, not above it in a circle.

If you thought anything in my post was vague, idk what to tell you.

Okay, I get your point now.  For what it's worth, the FE Youtube group Globebusters addresses the equatorial mount argument here: 

[Jimmy McGill]

Equatorial Mounts merely compensate for the movement of the stars.

Tom, the person who made that video, like you, doesn't understand the properties of an equatorial mounted telescope. This is specifically why I requested you get a basic understanding of how they work.
The huge advantage of the EQ mount over a mount that adjusts up-down, left-right, is that it can track the movement of any star or planet on one single axis.
It is physically impossible to track the movement of an object moving in a flat circle above a flat earth by rotating along one axis, as I clarified in my first reply comment to this post.

This really is the death of any model claiming that stars rotate in a circle above the earth. Back to the drawing board?

[Tom Bishop]

You are making baseless assumptions. The equatorial mount cancels out the movement of the stars to keep the telescope steady on an object, and nothing more.

[Jimmy McGill]

You are making baseless assumptions. The equatorial mount cancels out the movement of the stars to keep the telescope steady on an object, and nothing more.

And you are making a fool of yourself.
You. Can. Not. Track. The. Movement. Of. An. Object. Moving. In. A. Flat. Circle. Above. A. Flat. Plane. With. One. Axis. Of. Rotation.
If you can, prove it.

The EQ mount tracks a perfect circle when you train it on a star or planet etc. For some objects, the circle may be totally within the horizon. For objects further away from the celestial poles, the EQ mount will follow it's perfectly circular path, and the path goes AROUND the earth, not in a flat plane. The scope looks THROUGH the earth to keep track of the object.

What are you even trying to say when you mean the EQ mount "cancels out the movement of the stars"?
Don't accuse me of baseless assumptions when you won't take a courtesy half-hour out of your time to educate yourself on the topic being discussed.

[Bobby Shafto]

The equatorial mount cancels out the movement of the stars to keep the telescope steady on an object, and nothing more.

How does an equatorial mount cancel out the movement of the stars and keep the telescope steady on an object?

I know how it works if the earth is a spinning globe.


How does it work if celestial objects rotate over a static flat earth?  What's the counterpart in a flat earth model to the globe's polar axis?

[Tom Bishop]

In the North the stars rotate around the North Star. The Equatorial Mount attempts to track the rotation, by turning with the stars around the North Star.

The stars do not reflect the Round Earth Theory, however. The excuse-masters of the Round Earth Theory have incorporated massive amounts of refraction which slows the stars down as they approach the horizon. The Equatorial Mount includes refraction adjustments in its software.

Stars slow at an exponential rate:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction



Researcher have even described that "infinite refraction" can occur near the horizon.

From a paper titled Understanding Astronomical Refraction we read:

[Jimmy McGill]

In the North the stars rotate around the North Star. The Equatorial Mount attempts to track the rotation, by turning with the stars around the North Star.

The stars do not reflect the Round Earth Theory, however. The excuse-masters of the Round Earth Theory have incorporated massive amounts of refraction which slows the stars down as they approach the horizon. The Equatorial Mount includes refraction adjustments in its software.

Stars slow at an exponential rate:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction



Researcher have even described that "infinite refraction" can occur near the horizon.

From a paper titled Understanding Astronomical Refraction we read:

Your attempt at deflection is admirable, even as obvious as it is.
I hope you posted that in the wrong thread.

[Jimmy McGill]

The equatorial mount cancels out the movement of the stars to keep the telescope steady on an object, and nothing more.

How does an equatorial mount cancel out the movement of the stars and keep the telescope steady on an object?

I know how it works if the earth is a spinning globe.


How does it work if celestial objects rotate over a static flat earth?  What's the counterpart in a flat earth model to the globe's polar axis?

That's a very useful picture. Idk why I never thought of looking for one.

[Bobby Shafto]

In the North the stars rotate around the North Star. The Equatorial Mount attempts to track the rotation, by turning with the stars around the North Star.

Yeah, but how? The principles of configuring the mount to perform that feat are based on a globe earth. I can't picture how that is accomplished if the earth is flat.

I've tried to diagram it with either a monopolar or bi-polar model. I'm stumped.

[JCM]

In the North the stars rotate around the North Star. The Equatorial Mount attempts to track the rotation, by turning with the stars around the North Star.

The stars do not reflect the Round Earth Theory, however. The excuse-masters of the Round Earth Theory have incorporated massive amounts of refraction which slows the stars down as they approach the horizon. The Equatorial Mount includes refraction adjustments in its software.

Stars slow at an exponential rate:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction



Researcher have even described that "infinite refraction" can occur near the horizon.

From a paper titled Understanding Astronomical Refraction we read:

Except Tom, those stars aren't slowing down at all as seen from your friend 2000 miles to the west at the same latitude is watching the same stars approaching the horizon moving 15 degrees about an hour.  12 hours later on 12 timezones away same latitude watches the same stars moving moving moving towards the horizon.  This movement proves the stars are not fading off in the distance they are in fact always moving 15 degrees about per hour...  15 degrees x 24 hours is 360 degrees ... what object has 360 degrees?

The stars are dipping under the horizon, the north star has not faded out as you need it to.

[RonJ]

You are all forgetting that all you need to have is a sextant, an accurate clock, and a nautical almanac to use the moon, sun, planets, and stars for navigational purposes.  You simply measure the angle of the desired heavenly body above the horizon then look up the information you need in the nautical almanac at a specific time and you can plot a line of position.  This technique ONLY works on a global earth and has for 100 years.  It is tried & true and is unassailable proof that the earth is round.

[HorstFue]

In the North the stars rotate around the North Star. The Equatorial Mount attempts to track the rotation, by turning with the stars around the North Star.

An equatorial compensates the misalignment of the observers vertical axis to earth rotation axis, or it orients one axis to be perpendicular to the equatorial plane - which gives it's name.
Observations or finding and tracking stars are than much easier, as you only have to adjust elevation - one time process - and azimuth - continuous process.
There are only two points on globe earth, where you don't need an equatorial mount: South and North Pole. On any other point vertical is "towards earth center", which is not perpendicular to equatorial plane.
You could also work without an equatorial mount, but then you have to adjust all axes continuously and even turn the image.

The stars do not reflect the Round Earth Theory, however. The excuse-masters of the Round Earth Theory have incorporated massive amounts of refraction which slows the stars down as they approach the horizon. The Equatorial Mount includes refraction adjustments in its software.

"massive amounts of refraction": The diagram below shows a maximum of 35 arc minutes, only 5 arc minutes for elevations (apparent altitude) > 10°. This is 0.5° or 0.1°
"Equatorial Mount ... software": An equatorial mount is a piece of pure mechanics. Ok, you could add additional devices/tools, to have an automated tracking, but most often only a - even mechanical ones are in use - clockwork is used, to adjust the azimuth. Equatorial mounts are in use since centuries, without computers and software

Stars slow at an exponential rate:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

I could not find the word "slow" in this article!

[Jimmy McGill]

I was just reading about the "bishop experiment". IDK if Tom is the one who wrote that article, but it appears that the person who did has access to a telescope.

I wonder if it's on an EQ mount and Tom's silence is because he did the "Mcgill" experiment and has been stumped.

[J-Man]

Does this mean a rainbow really isn't in a shape of a bow? Or that my eyes deceive me that it isn't multicolored? So much fake news.

[Jimmy McGill]

Does this mean a rainbow really isn't in a shape of a bow? Or that my eyes deceive me that it isn't multicolored? So much fake news.

I'm sorry, you've confused me. Fake news? Rainbows? Maybe a troll, but I'll bite.
A bow isn't. a shape. Rainbows always form circles or partial circles. They are made when light travels through water droplets in the atmosphere. Light travels more slowly through water than it does air so it bends, or refracts. you can create one with a water hose.
Rainbows aren't a sign from a sky wizard. Do you propose that, before the mythical flood, light behaved in a different manner than it does now?

Also, please explain what your reply has to do with my OP or any response it received...