[AATW]

It's pretty telling that you are unaware that the size of the stars are illusions in RE, and do not follow the angular size with distance rule of perspective - https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

I like the fact that you quote part of an article on that page which includes this sentence:

Today, despite the advances in technology and knowledge, science faces rejection by those who claim that it is bedeviled by hoaxes, conspiracies, or suppressions of data by powerful establishments.

Sound familiar?

I'm also amused that you think that perspective is something which is optional and only some objects obey, as though perspective is a subscription service which not every object is signed up to. For ages on here you were arguing that sunset happens by "perspective", more recently you seem to have jumped on the EA bandwagon and now argue that the sun and moon randomly don't obey perspective. Yes, they're at vastly varying distances during the day/night but they maintain a constant angular size through the night because of some effect which I showed some time ago is debunked by the images on your Wiki page about it. And the effect is claimed to work for bright lights so wouldn't apply to the crescent moon.

There is some optical effect because stars are so distant they are effectively point sources, but in your model they aren't that distant. So why wouldn't they greatly vary in angular size?

And why are you arguing against the stars moving in circles when the Wiki page which you wrote claims they do?

[Tom Bishop]

I note you're completely ignoring my post above where I showed a projected 10-hour tracking error of just over 1 degree for a decent EQ mount.

This isn't sufficient evidence. If you set up EQ mount and set up and align the various components which attach to the telescope and mount, a captured star in view will drift out of frame, either quickly or more slowly, but drift out of frame none-the-less, and in minutes. Assuming that the person recorded his best time for his website and you have then extrapolated that sample time out to 10 hours, it still doesn't show that the telescope's view was traveling in a perfect circle with the EQ mount. The alignment of the components on the device or alignment with the pole could still be off, and the trial could only be matching the particular elliptical or oblong shape of the star's path to get the "best" case for the sample. So really, this approach means nothing on its own to show the shape of the star paths, and mainly verifies that the EQ mount cannot track the stars for very long in contradiction to the previous statements here.

[JSS]

I note you're completely ignoring my post above where I showed a projected 10-hour tracking error of just over 1 degree for a decent EQ mount.

This isn't sufficient evidence. If you set up EQ mount and set up and align the various components which attach to the telescope and mount, a captured star in view will drift out of frame, either quickly or more slowly, but drift out of frame none-the-less, and in minutes.

Wrong.

This is completely and totally incorrect and anyone who has used an EQ mount will tell you so. You really need to research subjects better before making such statements.

I can use the same camera and lens I used to make my earlier star trails photo, put it on my equatorial mount and keep any star I choose in the frame for your ten hours if I wanted.

You still think that people saying you can only have a shutter time of 5 minutes means the star drifts out of frame that fast, this is completely wrong and in total ignorance of the basics of astrophotography. In 5 minutes it will drift a tiny amount, enough to move a few pixels on the camera sensor and cause the star to blur.  But it's hardly going to move out of the frame, and will remain closely centered for hours if carefully lined up first.

Assuming that the person recorded his best time for his website and you have then extrapolated that sample time out to 10 hours, it still doesn't show that the telescope's view was traveling in a perfect circle with the EQ mount. The alignment of the components on the device or alignment with the pole could still be off, and the trial could only be matching the particular elliptical or oblong shape of the star's path to get the "best" case for the sample. So really, this approach means nothing on its own to show the shape of the star paths, and mainly verifies that the EQ mount cannot track the stars for very long in contradiction to the previous statements here.

Stars do not move in ellipses, your own wiki says so, and photographic evidence says so.  Look at the video again, the camera is rotating but the stars all stay put, only driving TOGETHER as the camera moves slightly out of alignment.  If they were moving in ellipses you would see some stars moving out of sync with the other and NO video with a rotating camera shows that.

You simply do not understand what "can only track for 5 minutes" means.  YOu should post on some of these star forums and ask for clarification if you are confused over what they are actually saying, they will happily explain it to you.

[Tom Bishop]

You still think that people saying you can only have a shutter time of 5 minutes means the star drifts out of frame that fast, this is completely wrong and in total ignorance of the basics of astrophotography. In 5 minutes it will drift a tiny amount, enough to move a few pixels on the camera sensor and cause the star to blur.

Nope.

The author in the link we are discussing shows that the star drifts out of shot within a short amount of time.

http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?astrophoto_mount_errors.htm

"Capture Selected Frames capture mode was selected with period 1 second (exact period was 1.11s)."



Meanwhile you continue to provide zero evidence or reference that it is possible to keep it lined up for hours, and merely repeat this statement without qualification, in contradiction to multiple references which suggest that it only stays in frame for a short amount of time.

[JSS]

You still think that people saying you can only have a shutter time of 5 minutes means the star drifts out of frame that fast, this is completely wrong and in total ignorance of the basics of astrophotography. In 5 minutes it will drift a tiny amount, enough to move a few pixels on the camera sensor and cause the star to blur.

Nope.

The author in the link we are discussing shows that the star drifts out of shot within a short amount of time.

http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?astrophoto_mount_errors.htm

"Capture Selected Frames capture mode was selected with period 1 second (exact period was 1.11s)."



Meanwhile you continue to provide zero evidence or reference that it is possible to keep it lined up for hours, and merely repeat this statement without qualification.

Tom, did you read the part where I mentioned I could get ten hours using the same lens I did with my first star trails shot?

Lenses and scopes matter a LOT in how long a shot stays in the frame.  His example is using a high magnification telescope that increases the error that occurred over 24 minutes and 35 seconds. You using that example shows you really don't understand what's going on here.  If I used my camera instead that star would have remained very closely centered.

Lets repeat that, the star moved a small amount across his highly magnified view in 23 minutes.  That's not going entirely out of the frame in 5 minutes like you claim.

You need to understand how lenses and magnification works before you tell people things they literally do are impossible. You misunderstanding things is not evidence.

The video presented earlier still trumps any other argument, it shows the entire field of stars moving as one. Not ellipses, not ovals, all rotating around a single point. In circles.

[Tom Bishop]

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

[Tom Bishop]

Previously you told us that we could just buy one of these telescopes and that it will keep the star "perfectly aligned." Now you're changing your tune and saying that we need to get rid of the telescope use and only use a camera mounted on an EQ mount.

I have been thinking about how to prove stars move in perfect circles, no matter where you are on the planet and I think I have a simple, direct method to do so.

The Equatorial Telescope Mount



This is a very simple device, it's just shaft with a motor that turns the telescope in a circle, making one rotation every 24 hours.

When you point the axis of this motor at the north or south pole star, you can then mount your telescope to it, aim your telescope at a star and that star will remain perfectly centered in your viewfinder as the telescope is now rotating with the stars.

The key here is this mount simply rotates your telescope in a circle. That is all it does. It is physically a single axis, it's incapable of moving in anything BUT a circle. It literally can not turn in ovals or parabolas or any other shape, it is a single rotating axis. And it will keep any star you look at perfectly aligned.

This could not be possible if the stars did not also move in perfect circles.

There are hundreds of sites explaining how EQ mounts work and how to set them up if anyone wants to look them up. The EQ mount has been made and sold to millions of people around the world, it's widely used and so simple there can be little confusion on how it operates, and if it did not work as advertised, this would be well known by now.

You apparently do not know how it operates, because we can't just buy a telescope and expect the stars in view to stay perfectly aligned with a EQ mount for very long.

Now you are conceding to this and ranting about how we need to use an EQ mount and a camera, backtracking away from the telescopes that you told us about.

[stack]

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

[Tom Bishop]

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

Now his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

[stack]

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

My scope can certainly track stars all night long if I have a wide angle lens.  Less if I start to zoom in.

Now suddenly his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

What in the world are you going on about? You're saying you can't track stars for more than a few minutes, yet you've been told and shown that you can track stars for hours. Do you get that yet?

What's this about "he...wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether."? Where is that coming from? Aren't we talking about telescopes with EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc.? I have no idea what you're even saying anymore, you're so all over the place.

[Tom Bishop]

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitaute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

My scope can certainly track stars all night long if I have a wide angle lens.  Less if I start to zoom in.

Now suddenly his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

What in the world are you going on about? You're saying you can't track stars for more than a few minutes, yet you've been told and shown that you can track stars for hours. Do you get that yet?

What's this about "he...wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether."? Where is that coming from? Aren't we talking about telescopes with EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc.? I have no idea what you're even saying anymore, you're so all over the place.

Follow the thread please. The argument was about tracking in telescopes:

You are confused that some users get better tracking with a telescope mount DESIGNED FOR BETTER TRACKING rather than a telescope designed to be cheap? Why is this a point of confusion for you?  If you want long term tracking, buy a mount designed for that.

Now you want to go down the rabbit hole of proving to you that telescopes can track stars for a 'long' duration.  Fine, but please specify what 'long' is so I don't waste my time, thanks.

The topic was tracking in telescopes. Now you guys want to change this topic because you understand that you are wrong.

[JSS]

Previously you told us that we could just buy one of these telescopes and that it will keep the star "perfectly aligned." Now you're changing your tune and saying that we need to get rid of the telescope use and only use a camera mounted on an EQ mount.

You apparently do not know how it operates, because we can't just buy a telescope and expect the stars in view to stay perfectly aligned with a EQ mount for very long.

Now you are conceding to this and ranting about how we need to use an EQ mount and a camera, backtracking away from the telescopes that you told us about.

Tom, do you understand that a camera attached to a telescope and a camera attached to a lens is the same thing? Both are lenses, we just call one a telescope. You can attache either to a mount, and many people do. If you are confused, please feel free to go to any astronomy forum and ask your questions.  I'm sure they would help you, and they will back up what I am saying.

While you're there ask them if stars go in circles or ovals.

You can claim out of ignorance that telescopes that are designed to track stars can't track stars, but millions of people who use them prove you wrong.

I can keep the stars in frame with my 20mm prime lens, and will do so if I ever get a nice clear warm night. Ask anyone who owns a telescope and an eq mount and they will give you the same answer I am.

[stack]

You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitaute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

My scope can certainly track stars all night long if I have a wide angle lens.  Less if I start to zoom in.

Now suddenly his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

What in the world are you going on about? You're saying you can't track stars for more than a few minutes, yet you've been told and shown that you can track stars for hours. Do you get that yet?

What's this about "he...wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether."? Where is that coming from? Aren't we talking about telescopes with EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc.? I have no idea what you're even saying anymore, you're so all over the place.

Follow the thread please. The argument was about tracking in telescopes:

You are confused that some users get better tracking with a telescope mount DESIGNED FOR BETTER TRACKING rather than a telescope designed to be cheap? Why is this a point of confusion for you?  If you want long term tracking, buy a mount designed for that.

Now you want to go down the rabbit hole of proving to you that telescopes can track stars for a 'long' duration.  Fine, but please specify what 'long' is so I don't waste my time, thanks.

The topic was tracking in telescopes. Now you guys want to change this topic because you understand that you are wrong.

Change the topic to what? Everyone is talking about telescopes, cameras, lenses, EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc. All the stuff used to do astrophotography. How do you do your astrophotography? With a disposable camera from Wallgreens?

[JSS]

The topic was tracking in telescopes. Now you guys want to change this topic because you understand that you are wrong.

The topic was actually FE explaining star trails, which you have yet to provide any answer for and are reduced to claiming stars don't go in circles even though the wiki that you wrote says they do.

I've provided plenty of examples to prove you wrong. 

Here is another showing that the entire sky of stars is static, done by recording 24 hours and rotating the video to show how the stars are fixed.  If the stars are going in ovals then how come they are not moving in relation to others?  This video and all the others completely invalidates all your claims.

[scomato]

it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time.

Tom, there are many How-To guides on YouTube for doing this, using a device such as a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Motorized Mount. It is the basis of astrophotography, a hobby that many non-scientists enjoy.

This is a great video of a guy doing this in his backyard, with top tier hardware. He is keeping Mars in frame, without trailing, for hours at a time. At 7:26 in this video, you can see a tracked preview image of Mars without any trailing, and his final photo is not smeared like a time lapse.

[Tom Bishop]

Change the topic to what? Everyone is talking about telescopes, cameras, lenses, EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc. All the stuff used to do astrophotography. How do you do your astrophotography? With a disposable camera from Wallgreens?

The discussion was clearly tracking with telescopes. I can see with your reply that you choose to be disingenuous to this and see no further point in discussion.

The topic was actually

You were talking about telescope tracking in those quotes about the EQ mount and have failed to maintain your position.

Here is another showing that the entire sky of stars is static, done by recording 24 hours and rotating the video to show how the stars are fixed.  If the stars are going in ovals then how come they are not moving in relation to others?  This video and all the others completely invalidates all your claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYcKaBzr87g

Incorrect. The stars are drifting in the video there. They don't stay in the same spot on the screen. It's also easily edited/rescaled to get the ideal result like the previous images. It doesn't matter that it's a video. By your previous standards, if it's possible for the media to have been edited then it's invalid.

it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time.

Tom, there are many How-To guides on YouTube for doing this, using a device such as a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Motorized Mount. It is the basis of astrophotography, a hobby that many non-scientists enjoy.

This is a great video of a guy doing this in his backyard, with top tier hardware. He is keeping Mars in frame, without trailing, for hours at a time. At 7:26 in this video, you can see a tracked preview image of Mars without any trailing, and his final photo is not smeared like a time lapse.

Go to 2:24: "The guide telescope on top is..." and "I have a small asi 120mm mini guide camera in there..."

There is a guiding device on the telescope that optically tracks the celestial bodies to move the telescope in tandem:

[stack]

Change the topic to what? Everyone is talking about telescopes, cameras, lenses, EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc. All the stuff used to do astrophotography. How do you do your astrophotography? With a disposable camera from Wallgreens?

The discussion was clearly tracking with telescopes. I can see with your reply that you choose to be disingenuous to this and see no further point in discussion.

The topic is "How does FE explain star trails?" Within that topic, the discussion has been about tracking with telescopes. And it still is. I don't know why you think it isn't?

Astrophotography = taking photographs of astronomical objects, hence the name (Astro+Photo). To do that, you need a sky, astronomical objects, camera with some type of lens, like a telescope or perhaps a really long camera lens. If you want to track astronomical objects it helps greatly to have a tripod for stabilization, and even better, the addition of an EQ mount. And there you have it: Gear to track and image astronomical objects. What are you confused about?

Go to 2:24: "The guide telescope on top is..." and "I have a small asi 120mm mini guide camera in there..."

There is a guiding device on the telescope that optically tracks the celestial bodies to move the telescope in tandem:

So what? "During the length of the exposure, the astro-imager follows the motion of a star—the guide star—and, when the star appears to move slightly because of errant motion of the mount, applies a corrective signal to the mount to move the star back to its original position."

Just another arrow in the astrophotographer's quiver to help with tracking, especially at the amateur gear/proficiency level.

[JSS]

For anyone confused about the difference between cameras and lenses and telescopes here is some quick information about equipment I own.

This is just a cheap (but great build quality) 500mm focal length telescope.  It's got a mount for a DSLR camera on the side.



This is also a 500mm focal length telescope, it has the same camera mount on the back end as the bigger telescope. It mounts directly to the camera. This looks like a normal lens so it's easier to recognize the similarities.



Do you see why being confused over using a lens vs using a telescope is silly? In either case you are hooking a camera up to some glass and a tube.

Hopefully this clears things up so nobody is confused over why we are talking about both camera lenses and telescopes in the same discussion, they are functionally equivalent.

[SteelyBob]

it's possible for the media to have been edited it's invalid.

And that's it, right there, in a nutshell, isn't it? Despite thousands of people the whole world over participating in this hobby, despite an overwhelming preponderance of high quality evidence, it might be faked. Kind of true, really - it could be. Everything can be faked. That stunning video that JSS posted (thanks JSS - never seen that before. Amazing) Every video, every instruction manual, every website. Every design for a telescope mount, every patent, every moon landing video, every how-to-adjust-the-drift-nut-on-your-directional-gyro, it all could be faked. My plea - and this is directed at other people reading this, because you're either being deliberately disingenuous  or are truly beyond hope - is to ask yourself, which is more likely? The mass fakery, or the scientific consensus?

[Tom Bishop]

For anyone confused about the difference between cameras and lenses and telescopes here is some quick information about equipment I own.

It appears that you are the one who is confused between a telescope and a camera. From your previous quotes you were arguing about the view through telescopes on EQ mounts and are now abandoning that argument and insist that the EQ mount discussion is not about telescopes anymore, and that you only mean the view through a camera only.

it's possible for the media to have been edited it's invalid.

And that's it, right there, in a nutshell, isn't it? Despite thousands of people the whole world over participating in this hobby, despite an overwhelming preponderance of high quality evidence, it might be faked. Kind of true, really - it could be. Everything can be faked. That stunning video that JSS posted (thanks JSS - never seen that before. Amazing) Every video, every instruction manual, every website. Every design for a telescope mount, every patent, every moon landing video, every how-to-adjust-the-drift-nut-on-your-directional-gyro, it all could be faked. My plea - and this is directed at other people reading this, because you're either being deliberately disingenuous  or are truly beyond hope - is to ask yourself, which is more likely? The mass fakery, or the scientific consensus?

Previously in this thread multiple images were rejected because it was possible that they were modified. Now you want to bring in a piece of media and insist that it is not modified, when it is possible that it was modified by the authors to get an ideal result for their purposes. This is hypocrisy, regardless of the validity of the media. If it is possible that it was modified then it must be discarded by those same standards.