Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« Reply #240 on: February 12, 2021, 09:55:06 PM »
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.

Can you give me an example of a piece of video or image media that could not have been faked?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1235
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« Reply #241 on: February 13, 2021, 01:55:04 AM »
Quote
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.

Did you not read my post? ::)

I tried, using simple pictures and being as brief as possible (as you complain when explanations are too lengthy or complex) to show you that there is no difference between hooking up a camera to a telescope to look at stars, and hooking up a lens to a camera to look at stars.

They are the same thing, a tube with glass in it. 

I am at a loss as how you are unable to comprehend this.  What is confusing you?

You need to look beyond the words, Tom. Camera, telescope, lens... yes these are different words but I am talking about the exact same thing with all of them. Attaching them to an EQ mount to track and photograph the stars.

Again... a telescope and a zoom lens perform the SAME FUNCTION.  You look through them and they magnify and focus light. 

I think you need to spend some time learning about hos all this works.  You really should make some accounts on various astronomy forums and ask questions there.  Your claim that stars go in ovals goes against everything millions of people observe with their own telescopes and yes, cameras.  It's very simply to explain that a device designed to turn in circles is meant to track things that also move in circles.  Go to some other forums and ask your questions to verify what I am saying.  You will find they give the same answers I do.  Ask if stars go in ovals or circles.  Ask if EQ mounts are meant to go in circles and track circular stars.

You don't have to limit yourself, there is a whole world out there of people who have the answers to your questions.  Ask them.  Do some research, the truth is out there.

Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« Reply #242 on: February 13, 2021, 09:58:45 AM »
Your claim that stars go in ovals goes against everything millions of people observe with their own telescopes and yes, cameras.
More to the point, it goes against a Wiki page on here which Tom wrote.
Which leads me to believe Tom is arguing in bad faith here and just arguing for the sake of arguing.
And I don’t see how this is a point for FE either way.

The original topic was how FE explains star trails. The way the stars circle around Polaris in the North, circle around a southern point in the south in the opposite direction and the trail picture I posted from the equator is explained - indeed predicted - by a model of us living on a rotating globe with distant stars. That model also explains the constant magnitude of stars and the constant positions in relation to each other.

FE can only explain this by inventing ad hoc mechanisms or just flat out denial.

Tom’s attempt to derail this thread and his unwillingness to make any observations himself shows the weakness of his position.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2021, 10:09:38 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis