Flat Earth can't Telescope.

[@ChristopherLane]

When you were younger did you ever imagine that one day you would be trying to prove to people that earth was round and not flat? I bet you never did :)

[@Wolfie6020]

+Chris in Cebu. Not in my wildest dreams...

[@Muhammed-Isa-Sulayman]

It just goes to show that Einstein was truly correct, human stupidity is in fact infinite.

[@markryan3018]

Is there a list somewhere of the proofs (colloquial use of the term, not mathematical). I keep learning and finding more proofs, and I'd like a collection of them. 1. Sunset 2. Polaris at the angle from the horizon equal to your north latitude. 3. Moon flipped in opposite hemispheres. 4. Circular star trails in southern hemisphere. 5. Gravity 6. Latitude. 7 Prediction of astronomical events. 8. Eclipses etc, something like that? Short, concise, and certainly something that could be gone into in more depth...but just a list at this point. Ever run into anything like that? It would be fun to add to the list and watch the list grow. People think Im an idiot for arguing with Flattards...but I see it as a learning opportunity.

[@jayskyfire]

+Mark Ryan: You can add "Hidrostactic equilibrium" to that list which when applied to planetary geology states that the more mass a celiestial body has, the more scpherical it will be. It's what differentiates asteroids from dwarf planets. Also more than 24 hours of sunlight in the South Pole also debunks FE, it just doesn't work in any of their models to the point that they deny that it's true. So all "flat earthers" need to know that they're wrong is to go on a cruise to Antarctica during the Southern hemisphere solstice.

[@Muhammed-Isa-Sulayman]

Expecting a flat earther to spend 10k+ USD and fly into the coldest continent on Earth to prove their nonsensical beliefs untrue? You sir are are a huge dreamer.

[@Jeff-Real-Jeff]

In Brisbane Australia 27° south, we can NOT see Polaris. And the Southern Cross is not visible from the Northern Hemisphere either if you are more than 25° above the equator. On a flat Earth, Polaris and the Southern Cross would be easily seen from everywhere. Don't start talking crap about them being too far away.. They go below the horizon and THAT is why you cannot see them.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jeff In Australia. I totally agree with you Jeff.

[@FlatEarthMath]

You must have the *World's Most Patient Spouse.* Bless our dear wives... :-) You know what bugs me about your videos, Wolfie? You're a pilot, I'm a teacher. And yet you teach better than I do! Please continue hurting my feelings, your classroom literally has thousands of pupils... :-) And I am enjoying your telescopes and mounts vicariously.

[@Wolfie6020]

+FEM She is the jewel of my life. She tolerates everything. :-)

[@YaKnowWhatIming]

Have either of you seen this video by any chance? /watch?v=tGEkd-KDvGI , it's titled "Flat Earth - This can't be debunked"

[@Wolfie6020]

+Yaknow Whtaiming. Ignoring the obvious errors in scale in that video, he is drawing it wrong anyway. There is no upwards angle to the top of the bulge - His understanding is completely flawed. The bulge is not 160 feet above his head at all. It is below his eye level. He is also ignoring the fact that the local "down" changes across that distance. He is using a constant direction of down for his logic. Nothing to debunk really. It is a great example of the flawed thinking some of these guys have.

[@YaKnowWhatIming]

Wolfie6020 Thanks for that comment, Eric Dubay and D. Marble also commented on that video haha, what a joke, keep up the video experiments Wolfie, have you by any chance ever gotten messages from people who said they believed in a flat Earth but reconsidered the Earth being a globe after watching your experiments?

[@Wolfie6020]

+Russ, I don't post footage from telescopes - I use the P900 attached to the top. Like this. dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62849459/RUSS/Russ.png By the way, Soundly is using a P900 - I bought it for him.

[@michael9678727]

great video, but flat earthers will just ignore this video

[@wolfganglaun2319]

Saw your photo with the P900 piggy-backed on your SC. What can you achieve with this setup? Do you know some report etc?

[@Wolfie6020]

+Wolfgange Laun I did that mainly to get the time lapse videos of the Sun to prove it does not change size during a day.

[@APMI-OFICIAL]

How I wish I could have a telescope like those...

[@JaviAnt7747]

APMI! No esperaba verte por aqui! Sigue jodiendo a los terraplanistas! :)

[@KURTrek]

I don't recommend these schmit-cassegrain telescopes for viewing purposes. You would usually use these for astrophotography. I recommend getting a dobsonian telescope.

[@GamjaField]

I used to have AVX mount with C6 telescope. It's a good entry level mount except for the well-known motor board failure.

[@Adrena1in]

Kurt Foster - I dunno about that, I had an 11" Celestron SCT once and the views through it were superb... Better than a 12" Dobsonian I had. However, the Dobsonian was far easier and quicker to set up each time. If I had a permanent base for an observatory for example, SCT all the way. But for portability, then yeah, Dobsonian. 👍

[@jarodstrain8905]

My personal experience, which is limited, you suggest that a dobsonian telescope has the soul benefit of being easy to set up. An equatorial mount will allow you to find and follow celestial objects with greater viewing accuracy, but it's more complex. A great solution to this would be something like the se4, which has a computerized system and can align with Star Charts automatically. It's great if you really want to find and learn about things. If you just want to stargaze, then a dobsonian saves you a lot of hassle. Either way you can get a decent telescope for in the ballpark of 500 dollars US. You can get something really basic and fun for about 70.

[@christianlacroix5713]

Flat Earther: “Yeah but...”

[@Theslayer19811]

how can you have Polaris and therefore use it as a reference(stationary point/star) if everything is moving(earth, sun Galaxy, milky way) and factoring yearly seasonal pole tilt according to big bang theory/relativity and the general science community?

[@JohnMichaelson]

Because all those motions are very stable, predictable, and can be accounted for. If you'd bothered to watch this video at all you'd see how the alignment reticle even has the different years marked for aligning the telescope with Polaris and the pole correctly because we do know how all those motions combine over time.

[@Theslayer19811]

John Michaelson according to modern science earth is on an elliptical​ and tilted orbit around the sun which means that there are changes to the distance to the sun and therefore angles in relation to polaris, when we factor in the velocity of the sun orbiting the milky way at (551,000 mph) tilted as well, no amount of computational power farless markings on a telescope can factor these probabilities/unknowns......if space is a vacuum how can one tell what is moving in relation to what??!! is earth moving in relation to everything else or is everything else moving in relation to earth? or is everything moving together or independently? either way for one to observe and gauge velocity or speed of an object in spacetime(physical realm) something must remain constant(still/immobile) steady but the universe is motion according to NASA

[@Wolfie6020]

+supertrey - the position of Polar is not stationary. It moves and it changes position over many years. I showed this in my video as it is factored into the polar alignment process - notice the reticle has different positions of Polaris for many years into the future.

[@Theslayer19811]

Wolfie6020 you do understand that we are talking about 434 lightyears in terms of distance to Polaris and angles as small as 0.00001 degrees having a profound effect on being off by thousand of Miles right?..do you really think that we can accurately measure these very small angles and alignments factoring earth rotation(1,040 mph), orbit of the sun (67,000 mph) orbiting the milky way at 551,000 mph by solar system ? I think not ....our current GPS and targeting systems have an accuracy of 95-97% per 1000 km, imagine a beam of radar being out 3% per 1000km on its way to Polaris..... that's 13 lightyears off or about 78 trillions miles... SMH

[@Theslayer19811]

additionally, factoring the axial tilt of 23.4% which would affect/skew the readings (polaris not perfectly centered) every 12 hours( largest change in distance/half rotation/angular change) do these equipment factor in this as well? being off by 0.00001 degrees at any given time will skew the results/alignment by thousand of miles and add to that the earth is constantly moving....the only way these readings can be accurate was is earth and Polaris were moving in the same direction at the same velocity and maintaining the same distance apart....

[@isimanica1]

On the telescope on the left, what do you think of its quality? Would it make a decent field scope for back country sky watching?

[@Wolfie6020]

+isimanica1 - That one is the Celestron AVX and is a nice mount. The scope itself is from the Celestron 4SE. The mount can handle a much larger scope, up to 8 inches. I am happy with the quality and it is quite easy to transport. .

[@isimanica1]

Thank you for the input. Looking for a nice decent scope for a trip to Big bend I am planning to take later this year in the fall/winter or early spring of 2018. Plan to hike to a couple of peaks for some sky watching and possibly some cigar smokin while I am at it.

[@vr4sigma]

+ dazzathecameraman,Wolfie6020 why is polaris visible from 23.4 degrees below the equator ?

[@awakenedmilk4611]

Wolfie I'm a flat earther but this my friend is very convincing evidence for the globe. this is what I like experiments supporting a claim.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Awakened Milk. Thank you sir and you have earned my respect with this post.

[@V.Z.69]

Indeed. Just show two telescopes pointing in opposite directions. Brilliant. Proof! Boom! Bang! But what about 6 minute abs? What? There's no 6 minute abs! Seven minutes! What about two telescopes pointing in the same direction? Uh, oh proof again!

[@angelsndaisies6188]

Ikr LOL I'm surprised your post is still here. I looked through the comments and I know Flat Earthers would be all over this.... but there's suspiciously gone.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Chela Morya - just for the record I don't delete posts unless they contain extreme language - even then I give people fair warning before doing so. Nobody will have their post deleted for expressing any opinion - this site is about free speech but I draw the line with people who make ten posts in ten minutes containing nothing but profanities. That helps nobody

[@awakenedmilk4611]

I've been telling flat earthers to watch this video but no one listening

[@Wolfie6020]

Wow, thanks guys. That is a new record for my channel. Great to know this video is getting out there...

[@JohnMichaelson]

It's closing in on the most views any of them had as well, isn't it?

[@Wolfie6020]

+John Michaelson. Yes it is and almost a thousand subs now, it jumped another 50 overnight.

[@krisdevalle]

flat earthers get so triggered by any decent evidence that busts their idiot fantasies.

[@Wolfie6020]

+scott merrow - of course I will Scott, I told you NASA pays me 1 Million USD for each video. Nobody is forcing you to watch my videos mate, you come here by choice and you are free to leave anytime. If you think they are wasting your time, don't watch them... its that easy. But I predict you won't be able to help yourself and will keep coming back and watching my videos and trolling my channel again and again.

[@Wolfie6020]

+scott merrow. Have you not watched my other videos I have plenty of evidence of real curvature - I have even shown you photos of it. I have videos showing lighthouses hiding behind curvature - what more proof do you need? Why do you need my name? Are you in the USA? Send me an email at [e-mail] and we can arrange a meet next time I am there. I'll meet you in person no problem at all. If my name was Bob Smith or John Marsh, how would that make any difference to my videos?. I don't stay away from Curvature at all. I don't think of myself as a hero at all either.. Why would you use that word? Do you think I am a hero? You certainly have an active imagination mate. Jail time? Charges? I don't do this full time. This takes up no more than a few hours per week. Honestly mate, lighten up. I don't force you to watch my videos. You come here by your own choice. Don't you get it yet? If people like you stopped posting comments and asking for more proof I would lose interest and move on to something else because I already know what shape the Earth is. You guys are the ones motivating me to make more with all these questions and requests to "show you something" and to "Prove this", and "prove that". So I do and you are still not satisifed and you want more, so I do...over and over. See how it works? My first video was proving the Horizon Drops - I showed it to Eric Dubay, if he had simply said "thanks" I would have never looked at FE again. He didn't, he immediately deleted my post and blocked me. Then I had a bunch of people complain that it was fake and done in a simulator, so I made more videos proving it was a real plane and it just went from there. You want me to go away? Tell every Flat Earther to stop commenting on my channel and asking questions. When they stop asking questions, I will stop making videos. I have said that already several times. To be honest I am pretty bored with you guys already but if somebody asks a question I try to answer it with a video. e.g. I will make more videos on curve because YOU keep asking for proof of it.

[@imarocketman4125]

Good lord man, how much have you spent on equipment to make these debunking videos? Never mind, I don't want to know...it might be cheaper to just start flying people to the Amundsen-Scott station. 😀

[@Wolfie6020]

+Ima Rocketman. They are just for me really and I would have bought them either way. I did buy a solar filter for my camera specifically for FE but when I walked into that telescope shop the first time I knew it was a mistake. :-) Dad was a keen astronomer so we have always had telescopes in the family but the new gear is just incredible and I had to update.

[@imarocketman4125]

I've been considering buying one for the eclipse coming up. I probably need to do that soon.

[@nathangrant1824]

+wolfie6020 i went into a telescope shop last monday and i was quite surprised to see they weren't as expensive as i'd feared. £200 could get me started with something much larger than i'd imagined.

[@hijtohema]

I would like to have one to make long exposure photos of the sky at night. Unfortunately I live in a seriously light polluted area of the world

[@Wolfie6020]

+Nathan Grant. Be careful it is addictive ;-). Value for money is great. I love the little Nextstar 4 and 5Se too. They are Alt Az mounts with a build in wedge for equatorial mode and super easy to align and use. This is worth watching as he makes a lot of good points. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGjYhoWwhbecq6s

[@vivianastridge2167]

It would appear to be obvious that setting up telescopes according to the information and data provided for this process is to begin with specifically meant for the globe earth and so could never be valid for a flat earth. The reverse also would be true. The earth is of course a globe and although I do not known it to be a fact, I think it would be more natural for the earth to be a perfect sphere rather than any other as this is the shape the molten or plastic earth would have taken on cooling and solidifying, due to its massive gravity within its own mass . A sphere is the natural shape taken by any substance, whether molten metal plastic or pliable or neutral buoyancy entities. In the old days , lead shot was made by pouring out measured quantities of molten lead from a sufficient height to allow the metal to take on a perfect sphere shape before it reached ground. Molten metal accidentally spilled out from the crucible also takes on perfectly spherical shapes before falling to the ground. The greater mystery than the question of the shape of the earth, is the one inquiring into the reason as to why people believe in a flat earth and absolutely no one of any scholarship or genuine scientific standing seems to have addressed this aspect of the matter. Believe it or not, in India there is a very affluent section of the population known as the Jains whose religion has the flat eart as an essential element of its structure.

[@Justwantahover]

+Vivian The reason the earth is slightly oblate is cos there is more land mass in the NH than in the SH. Water is less dense than land so the gravity and mass cause the sphere to be that shape. Earth is always the same mass for both hemispheres but not the same density. SH is less dense so is "fattened" out by a mile to compensate in mass. It's able to attain that shape cos the earth is mostly molten and pliable (over millions of years of continental drifting). The crust breaks causing earthquakes etc. but as the continents move, the earth progressively and slightly adjusts shape by gravitational and mass induced forces to keep the earth in mass distribution equilibrium. I hope this helps. LIST OF SEEABLE GLOBE EVIDENCE SUN SIZE The flat earth model requires the sun (and moon) to be maximum apparent size at noon and then progressively appear smaller as it traverses towards the horizon. And it’s required to be like a “star size” just prior to it “Vanishing due to perspective” and at several degrees above the horizon. But we don’t see that, we see the sun slip behind the horizon at full apparent size SUN SHAPE Some flat earthers say the sun&moon are also flat. But if the sun was flat it should appear progressively more oval shaped as it traverses towards the horizon. But we don’t see that either, we see the sun slip behind the horizon in a complete round shape (as well as full apparent size). SUN and CURVATURE You can fly a “first-person-view” (FPV) drone with goggles so you can see what the drone camera records (in real time). Any hobby minded flat earther could do this experiment cos some quadcopters are cheap (like $100). Go to a beach and wait for the sun to completely set, and you can’t see any of the sun “disc” above the horizon (with a sun filter or with your FPV goggles cos FPV goggles are safe, it just washes out and won’t blind you). Then immediately start the drone and take off vertically and watch through your goggles and as you climb higher, you will see the sun again (at least partially). You need a powerful quad, but there are some with powerful “brushless motors” that are around $100, and a camera and goggles is another $100 (you don’t need a top-end quality picture to see the sun again). DISTANT OBJECTS CUT OFF BOTTOM Go to cliff on the coast where there are extremely distant object(s) (like islands or large structures) on the horizon. And set up a telescope. Study the distant object(s) and see if you can see it right down to the bottom of the object(s). If you cannot see the bottom of the object(s) you know the cliff is way too high for it to be any "swell" that's cutting it off on the bottom. And if you can go lower and view the same object it will be cut off on the bottom even more by the horizon. WAVETOPS Go up onto a high cliff over the ocean and view the horizon with a telescope. You will see a completely sharp cut-off of the water at the horizon and even see wave detail right on the horizon contrasting the background sky or object(s). If the world was flat we wouldn’t see that (from a high cliff). The horizon should appear like viewed from a high plane with no distinct edge and no wave detail silhouette on the horizon. THE MOON PHASES Flat earth model can’t explain it. The round side of the moon phase always faces the sun… no matter what time it is and where the moon is in relation to the sun. Study it yourself. And you can tell the time with the moon with nearly every phase (when it's up) how does that work on a FE? The nature of the lit area on the moon indicates where the sun is and hence, what time it is. There is a mechanism on how that works on a globe but none for a FE (except that "God did it"). lol THE SOUTHERN CROSS I live in Australia and flat earthers living in the NH can come down to the SH and observe the Southern Cross. It can be seen circling the SCP (if you look in stages throughout the night) from more than 30 degrees S. You can observe the fact that the Southern Cross never rises or sets, but just keeps going round in circles. I observed the left side of the circle in summer nights and the right side of the circle in winter nights. I have seen the whole circle. I have been keeping track of it for a year or so, it's true, the SCP is really there and I don’t even need time-lapse to see it. PLANETS PROVE SPACE VENUS With a small telescope you can view Venus and sometimes it appears larger and like 1/4 phase, and months later it appears smaller and like 3/4 phase. This is what everyone can see in a telescope. When Venus is larger and 1/4 phase it’s on the near side of the sun and when it’s smaller and 3/4 phase it’s on the far side of the sun (this geometry fits that exactly with what we see). This is visual proof of the depth of space. VENUS MARS JUPITER SATURN Venus is always observed somewhat near the sun and that completely fits with Venus being inside our orbit. And Mars, Jupiter and Saturn all appear anywhere in the sky in relation to the sun and that implies they are outside our orbit. What we all see proves space. JUPITER With the naked eye, Jupiter appears pure white and it’s about the brightest thing in the sky (after Venus) and it does not twinkle at all. It’s so easy to find (when Jupiter is up at night). Even with binoculars you can see the “disc” size of Jupiter (unlike the “point source” stars). JUPITER’s MOONS Even with good binoculars you can see Jupiter’s 4 visible moons traversing around Jupiter (side view). If you view in stages like several hours apart (or the next night) and you will see that the moons have changed positions. If the next night is cloudy just view again as soon as you can. Draw on paper what you see in the first stage, then compare it to what you see later in the second stage. Jupiter’s moons orbit quickly cos of Jupiter’s immense gravity. And this is visual proof of it. Did God put that on the “firmament”? JUPITER’s GREAT RED SPOT (GRS) With a good telescope (capable of resolving the GRS on Jupiter) you can see the GRS traverse the planet (in stages) throughout the night. And sometimes the GRS is visible and sometimes it's not (when it's on the other side of the planet). SATURN’s RINGS Through a telescope, study Saturn. To find it with the naked eye Saturn looks like a reasonably bright “star” and cream in colour and it does not twinkle at all. So when Saturn is up it’s easy to find if you keep in mind the colour and lack of twinkling (rather than the dominant brightness). Through a telescope you can see Saturn’s rings pitched at a certain angle giving the rings a certain apparent shape. View Saturn again a few months later (when it’s up) and you will see the rings take on a different apparent shape. This implies that the rings do in fact show depth. Did God put that on the “firmament”? SATURN’s MOONS You need a good telescope to see Saturn’s 3 visible moons. Just like with Jupiter, Saturn’s moons prove space by viewing it and then viewing it again the next night. You will see that the 3 moons change positions with each stage of viewing. You just do the same thing with Saturn as you do with Jupiter’s moons, to witness this. But Saturn’s moons are viewed at a different angle than with Jupiter (like not exactly a side view) and the moon’s (at least sometimes) appear like an oval around Saturn (instead of a straight line as with Jupiter).

[@itsrockitt]

Which map did you use? Our current maps are not precise. And where is the curvature so I can show these flat earth folks. How can I show them? Thanks

[@Wolfie6020]

+Ricky Rocks - I use WGS84 for my maps - it is super precise and locations are accurate to a few centimetres all over the Earth. I use the same model for international navigation with flight plans in real aircraft. It is super accurate.

[@53C52]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to share this.

[@alystee1]

Please don't jump to the typical conclusion I've seen through these comments and start referencing my intelligence or lack thereof as the reason for having a question ok. There are those of us who love true science. Truly love science ie experimentation, discovery, research, sharing information etc. What i find the most frustrating since preparatory school straight through to 2 university degrees...is that if a person observes something that doesnt fit in with commonly held beliefs, there is sure to follow swiftly behind him/her a hoarde of people ready to beat the person to a pulp (literally and figuratively)in a type religious fervor. Address peoples questions. Many people are making legitimate observations and to just seek to shut them up with insults to their intelligence only proves what they are saying about folks being made uncomfortable by questions(like cult members for example). I am not saying i am a flat earther but from a true science point of view, a great demonstration or experiment that would satisfy all, would NOT presuppose curvature or the lack of it and just document the observations. People who think there is no curve will not trust the results from a telescope already assuming the curvature. Im just saying. Thanks for reading to the end of my post. I hope people can be more understanding of each other, less judgmental and less eager to feel intellectually superior to his/her fellow human.

[@Wolfie6020]

+alystee - thank you for a sensible post - it is very refreshing after some of the abusive comments I have seen here today. Opinions and mature open discussion is always welcome here and you make many good points I agree with. I stated in my video that I don't want people to take my word for it - I often mention that in my videos - I make these videos to help people think for themselves and to consider ideas they may never previously have thought of. I hope some will go away and do their own research into Equatorial mounts - perhaps even buy one and test everything I said themselves. I know if I was 50/50 I certainly would after seeing a video like this. All I want is for people to think for themselves and do their own experiments because done correctly these will always lead a person to the truth. Thanks again for your comment and sorry for the late reply, Your post was in the Spam folder and I have no idea why but I saw it and approved it a few minutes ago.

[@sportydiver]

alystee1 Can you read a tape measure? It's flat. Your science is scientism. You can't start with assumptipns. So throw away your gravity and the distance measurement method holding a coin at arms length is hillatious. Believe the pendulum? Go watch the first and only 6 moon landings. The auquanots on the ISS is hilarious. Go SCUBA diving. I have over 1000 dives. Therefore I am part fish now. Take a physics class or at least watch Brian Mullin. Good luck

[@zackfreeman8025]

@@sportydiver ............what? Your whole comment makes no sense.

[@adlsfreund]

+sportydiver you've gone way off the rails, wow. do you even realize how nuts you are? i mean you do, right? surely you have to... there must be a reason you persist... do you get a thrill out of playing the lunatic character?

[@sportydiver]

adlsfreund. You are the gullable pseudo sciencetism ball worshiper that believes the earth is spinning and wobbling and chasing the sun while the galaxy is whizzing around. Did you add up all of those speeds? When a small earthquake happens do you shit your pants? Water is absolutely flat and level. Yet you believe in the unicorn theory of gravity when the answer is right in front of you. Get SCUBA certified and you will see and learn about density and bouyancy. It worls the same out of the water. You actually believe rockets can leave low earth orbit? Watch Brian Mullen or take a physics class

[@AtheosAtheos]

Another excellent one! Do you mind if I copy with subtitles ?

[@Wolfie6020]

+Atheos. Yes please feel free to copy.

[@AtheosAtheos]

Thanks, your work is very helpful.

[@AtheosAtheos]

I can provide the french subtitle file (.srt) if you want, even though most of your subscribers won't need it.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Atheos. Sure, thank you.

[@AtheosAtheos]

OK please send me a private message in my KZbin message box as it's not possible to send one to you. You can also go to the *Video & settings* page of this video then in _Advanced settings_ ► _Community contributions_ and tick _Allow viewers to contribute translated titles, descriptions and subtitles/CC."_ Then I can upload the file directly on your video (you may have to confirm that you accept it). If chose to do this way, please tell me when it's ticked.

[@themadcookieman]

do you make a 12 hour adjustment for the alighment of the two locations

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jeff Dumas. You don't have to Jeff. The orientation is based on Latitude, Longitude is irrelevant. They would appear this way if at 34 North and 34 South on the same line of Longitude too. This video will help you understand. . kzbin.info/www/bejne/anWnemuNiKqLbtE

[@mrsqueaksqueak8686]

Wolfie, Another excellent video. Sadly, I'm convinced this explanation will be lost on flat-Earthers, who will hear a wooshing-sound as your careful explanation wooshes-over their heads. If a flat-Earther actually understood your explanation, they would be known as a former flat-Earther. Practical astronomy (doing it for yourself) is the cure for flat-Earthism.

[@jean-yvesberthet8796]

Hello from 46°4'N,6°26'E ! Nice video and smart idea to prove the curvature with simple things !

[@Wolfie6020]

Hello Jean and thanks.

[@richardcarnes2834]

I predict the next development in flat-Earth thought: they will say that Australia is a hoax.

[@richardcarnes2834]

Or maybe the entire southern "hemisphere."

[@JohnMichaelson]

At least one of them says the Australia as shown on the "Gleason map" is the true Australia and the globe version isn't. Because reasons...and because they can't grasp the concept that the "Gleason map" is just a garden variety azimuthal equidistant projection map.

[@richardcarnes2834]

Let me help out the flat-earthers. Feel free to copy-and-paste: All those supposed photos of Sydney at night: See any stars? Photos of Uluru: Obviously fake. Kangaroos can't jump upside down, and if they could and the earth is a spinning ball they would land in the Indian Ocean. Time to come clean, Wolfie, and admit that there is no such place as "Australia." We have been lied to.

[@gowdsake7103]

Already has happened

[@debtminer4976]

You're too late Wolfie. The flat earth is a global phenomenon. Soon, even you will understand the gravity of our information and our model will make the world go round..

[@Wolfie6020]

+Debt Miner. Ok, you got me.. my bad.. good one. Sorry.

[@debtminer4976]

Wolfie6020 Just having some fun. Great work Wolfie 🍻

[@Wolfie6020]

+Debt Miner. Thanks, I feel bad at what I wrote the first time. Sorry again.

[@debtminer4976]

Wolfie6020 Well don't brother. You're good, and we need more like you. . My skin is way too thick anyway..😄

[@motokid6008]

How accurate would it be to say if you could have a telescope positioned directly on either pole you wouldn't need an EQ mount?

[@Wolfie6020]

+Motokid600 That is a fair comment. You would not need one. You could actually use an Alt Az mount at the Poles as the Azimuth axis is already aligned with the Earth's rotating axis. That would be cool. I have an Alt Az mount and will test it with a mock set up for the Poles. Haven't tried that yet.

[@motokid6008]

Wolfie6020 Yea if only the real ones weren't hostile tundras :p Nice setup with the equipment.

[@LawofMoses]

if you turn the northern latitude telescope and put it beside the southern what happens, do they not point exactly the same?

[@Wolfie6020]

+TheNarrowPath - yes they would line up if I turned on 180 degrees - because they are both set for 34 Latitude. But the Northern Latitude Telescope would not work at all if it was facing South in Los Angeles. That is the whole point of this video mate.

[@Jerre27]

hehe... only 2 equatorial mounts 😀. Good explanation, you can also make a positional video when it's on the equator and true north and South (rotational axis).

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jeroen - hehe. Early days :-) Yes that is a great idea. I have a lot more footage including explaining the Meridian flip but decided to keep this one shorter and post a seperate video on that tomorrow.

[@Jerre27]

Wolfie6020 meridian flip is too specific imo... Kiss principle?

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jeroen - you are right. A few people claimed one of my sun tracking videos was "rigged" because they saw the sunspot flip 180 degrees at lunchtime. I figured it might help them.

[@Jerre27]

Wolfie6020 just put a link in your video description: meridian flip prevents the telescope hitting tripod/pillar. astronomy.mdodd.com/gem_movement.html

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jeroen. Thanks Jeroen. Great link.

[@ophirdog]

Good point. But why so many negative feedback's. Must be sad flat Earthers.

[@Wolfie6020]

+ophirdog. Not one of them can debunk the truth of this so the only way they can respond is with a thumbs down.

[@emerituse3390]

This makes perfect logical sense, thus will be utterly ignored....

[@Wolfie6020]

+EmeritusE - I see you have prior experience with our Flat thinking Friends.

[@emerituse3390]

Indeed! =)

[@TheObserver567]

How would you see Polaris at the south if earth ecuator distance would get in the way? How is it possible?

[@Wolfie6020]

+The Analyst. You can't see Polaris from Sydney - that was my point - it is well below the Horizon.

[@joemarks8417]

I've seen their sun models and their moon models.....it does a good job of describing time zones....but how do you rectify the difference in seasons between Australia and the USA? It's summer in the USA but winter in Australia?!....please explain

[@dazzathecameraman]

"Houston, we have a problem!" Excellent video Wolfie!

[@ecsolha]

FE probably don't believe huston exists. Because reasons :-)

[@skiffles7895]

just like we went to the "moon" in the 60's a dozen times and cant go back because of "reasons" its laughable.

[@morrison511]

its actually not that good,

[@MGoudsmits]

+Truth and Knowledge why is it not that good?

[@Wolfie6020]

+M Goudsmits 金马桥 Probably because it was too advanced for the people who needed it most. Hopefully my follow up will resolve that.

[@HAIRz100]

1.Michelson-Morley experiment 2.Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity 3.The Sagnac effect, also called Sagnac interference This has already been settled. The PLANE of Earth is STATIONARY sir!

[@JohnMichaelson]

Just words you copy and paste and understand none of the significance of if that's what you actually think the end result of them is.

[@HAIRz100]

They were put there for him to look at. And if u think that these experiments of science, NOT pseudoscience. Does not prove that the Ether does exist, then please explain it to me. 1. and 3. prove the Ether. Einstein was an idiot. You can not just Erase the Ether. period!!

[@HAIRz100]

He is saying the Earth spins These 1. and 3. prove the Earth is still. So ye it i understand. u clearly do not sir. not one bit....!

[@HAIRz100]

oh by the way. You are looking at the wrong map sir. check flight paths they show the truth.

[@Wolfie6020]

+CARRIER PIGEON - did you see my reply about the flight paths? Any comment? They only work on the Globe.

[@pijesz]

this is just too advanced for flat earthers

[@Shedir]

+UrBrain Wash this is why you don't understand this.

[@knowledgewillincrease7508]

actually most flat earthers are not religious. Here is a math problem I want someone to figure out for me. I have been a surf photographer for 35 years, I live in Santa Barbara, Ca and we have the Santa Barbara Cannel Islands that you can see from shore. Visible most days are Santa Cruz and Anacapa Island and on really clear days, you can see San Miguel Island. Someone please go to wikipedia, find the hight of San Miguel island and the distance from shore and then tell me if the island should be visible or not, I see it all the time and it's in the background of many of my surf films and photos and is a well known sight here. Some math expert here tell me how I can view it when I should not be able to. Thanks

[@ShaneHolly]

AKA SURFSTYLEY there is almost always religious base to a flat tard thinking the earth is flat.

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

Spoken like a true idiot. You setting up a telescope in the Southern Hemisphere and bringing it back to North America . You think the telescope will be pointing to the ground!?

[@knowledgewillincrease7508]

sorry buddy, all the flat earthers I know where like me, believed in the globe, not religious but looked into the flat earth theory and then find things that don't work on a globe. like everyone who lives here seeing San Miguel Island. That is enough to get you to say, hummmmm Now see if you can tell me why I can see it when it should be 100's of ft below the curve.

[@elmundir]

what is the best télescope for money to surpass the p900 zoom?

[@JohnMichaelson]

Almost any of them, really, if you just want to exceed 82x magnification. Stay away from dirt cheap scopes and anything whose main selling point is its magnification, though. Beyond that, without knowing your budget it's literally impossible to get specific. No telescope is going to come with a zoom lens like a camera, though. Zoom eyepieces exist but they're almost all a mediocre performing gimmick.

[@swinde]

Almost ANY name brand Celestron, Meade, Orion, 60mm refractor or 100mm reflecting telescope will be FAR superior to a P-900. Be sure to have a sturdy mount. They will NOT zoom but with magnification controlled by the eyepiece used will deliver far superior images to the eye than the P-900. Now for photography or video, it is going to cost a lot more than a P-900.

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

Southern Hemisphere star time lapse. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3WvgH6DmMtjd80

[@PeterGalbraith]

Instead of rotating a ruler around the globe, turn the globe to show Sydney or LA at the top of the globe, with the ruler parallel to the ground and horizontal axis of the scope. Then you can show that the scope is pointing parallel to the axis of rotation of the globe by spinning it.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Peter Galbraith. Good idea Peter. I will do that in a future video.

[@rolfgrosseholz1311]

Good work. Without looking further it proves there is a lot of industry dependant on the earth being round.

[@morrison511]

ball earth and space are ponzi schemes. flat earthers know it. ball earthers just think what they are told to think without question, therfore defend something that is impossiball and illogical, water sticking to a spinning ball, let me guess there is an invisible force that has never been measured at work here?

[@richardcarnes2834]

T&K: All forces are invisible, and the force of gravity has been measured with great precision. Do the math and you'll find that gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is about 290 times the centrifugal acceleration at the Equator, so the corresponding forces on a given body are in the same proportion. That's why water sticks to the Earth as it rotates. I do like the word "impossiball," though. :-)

[@Herschel1738]

Is that invisible force you are talking about magnetism? You wouldn't be dumb enough to reject gravity because it is an invisible force that is a innate property of all matter, whose effects are observable and whose behavior can be mathematically described with pinpoint precision. And then fall for magnetism, which is an invisible force that is a property of SOME matter - well, only ferrous elements, except not all of them, that is imbued into some ferrous elements by an invisible magnetic force emanating from the Earth's core when the element is a liquid and at other times when the element is cold, by rubbing it on something else magnetic. Because gravity sounds so absurd but magnetism doesn't? (Hint, they both exist.)

[@sly1968si]

Great video.

[@alford35]

Wish people could actually listen to what you're trying to explain to them because it's plain as day proofing the curvature.

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

No dude if he took that telescope that is pointing towards the ground down to the Southern Hemisphere to set it up. It would still be pointing at the ground. Unless he adjusts it

[@Wolfie6020]

+Brolyn Smokesalot. I don't think you realise what you just said mate. "Unless he adjusts it" That is exactly the point. It has to be adjusted for local position on Earth. Of course it needs to be adjusted when you change location.

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

Why? Anywhere on earth you have to look up to see the stars. Some stars you would not be able to see because of the horizon.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Brolyn Smokesalot. C'mon man, use your brain. The rotational axis - my 12 year old daughter understands this.

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

What about the rotation?i am all ears dude

[@michaellorge1677]

I need telescope input... I've got a meade reflector telescope that was a gift (nothing extravagant, like a $150-200 setup). Tripod/mount is destroyed. Should I bother just getting a new one for it, get an electric mount, get a different telescope and upgrade all of it, or save for a p900? The price ranges of all of these have me completely unsure as to what is worth it... leaning towards just a replacement manual mount but I don't know what is shit, what is nice, and what is value...

[@cruztube23]

so, is it round or flat?

[@Wolfie6020]

+Melo - I give you a thumbs up for a sensible comment. Its round. But please don't take my word for it. On September 22nd, measure accurately the direction of the Sun as it Sets. It will be Due West. It is due West all over the Earth on that day. A physical impossibility on a Flat Earth. Try asking the Flat Earth channels about the Equinox and you will likely get banned as I did.

[@gowdsake7103]

do you even need to ask ?

[@MrDtaylor099]

Good video! Cheers

[@rkean78]

The axis is from the viewer looking from a level earth at a hemispherical reflective sky. This is proof of nothing. It is food for thought but not proof of what you are saying. When people say the earth is flat I don't think they are saying the sky above is flat. Very misleading video.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Traksmatik. Sorry, that is incorrect. This is absolute proof the Earth is not Flat. These mounts will not track objects correctly in a rotating sky. They track on the Right ascension axis only. One axis. Impossible on a Flat Earth. I don't mean to offend you, I hope you go away and think seriously about that because these would never work on a Flat Earth. The only thing misleading is your comment but I forgive you because I am starting to learn Flat Earthers have genuine problems with Geometry. The comments i got in relation to my videos answering Jeran's recent challenge proved to me that some people are hard wired in a way they cannot comprehend simple geometry at all.

[@rkean78]

Wolfie6020 A mountain and valley are proof of the earth not being flat. All this proves is that you think you live on a ball. 😂

[@Wolfie6020]

+Trakmatik I know I live on a Globe mate. I have spent my entire adult life flying around it. Three times entirely in the Southern Hemisphere. One day you will realise why the Earth cannot be Flat, I am trying to help you see it sooner.

[@richardcarnes2834]

Wolfie6020: "...some people are hard wired in a way they cannot comprehend simple geometry at all." Very interesting if true (I'm a teacher), but I suspect that most of the people you are referring to either need to see a demonstration in front of them in 3-D in order to understand it, or are strongly motivated to not comprehend a geometrical demonstration that contradicts a belief that is important to their world-view.

[@gowdsake7103]

You really dont understand the point do you ? An equatorial mount is designed to align using the southern or northern pole and latitude it uses just one motor to track and CANNOT work on a flat plane at all The mount will track the sun under the globe again with just one motor and will be pointing exactly where the sun rises or sets and will also track any star with ONE motor describing an arc that cannot happen on a flat earth AT ALL

[@wmgthilgen]

Well done!

[@MoocheShwag]

Wolfie, "It's not what you know it's what you can prove" I'm in LA if you ever want to do a experiment with the Moon I can do one here in LA and you can do one in Australia N vs S hemispheres. I have a few telescopes and cameras we could compare Moon phases it would be interesting. Cheers.

[@Wolfie6020]

ICoustic Ken - that sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we could get video on the next full moon at a specific UTC time and compare the RA and Declination from our scopes and the orientation visually referenced to the Horizon.

[@MoocheShwag]

Sounds Great send me a message we can talk off line or Skype.

[@gangoffour6690]

Hey it's Mr. Surveyor. Show me some kangaroos please. Did the dingo get your baby ? Do you eat Vegamite ?

[@arielherbez4077]

use the telescope to measure the curvature of the earth. Try to find water bending.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Ariel Herbez - If I do that will you beleive the Earth is a Globe?

[@arielherbez4077]

Wolfie6020 i did it. saw oil rig platforms in the gulf of mexico 43 miles away. have a celestron 8 and a nikon coolpix p900. curvature calculator says platform should be 1066 ft down, and i saw it completely. Go and do your own research, may be you'll became a flatearther like me after all.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Ariel Herbez. Genuine Kudos for doing your own experiments. Do you have video or can you give me precise details where you were located and the target? I like to verify things myself before commenting. I always do my own research. No chance I will be a Flat Earther my friend because I am a pilot and I fly a high altitude jet - I can see with my own eyes the Earth is not Flat and it will take more than a bit of refraction to trump that.

[@arielherbez4077]

Wolfie6020 i had my equipment in the beach of South Padre Island in Texas, pointing east (a little north east) i did it on august 2016, no videos sorry. Just think one thing, I don't like to have my wife, brothers ans friends against me, calling me crazy etc etc. But I'm honest with myself. Lying would be a lot easier for me, I don't get pay for saying: I checked and I did not find earth curvature, I always like to see the truth. If you're a pilot, i don't think you fly over 40k feet. There are hundreds, literally hundreds of videos of high altitude balloons over 100k feet up to 130k feet, and you can see a straight line in the horizon. Also there is a growing number of pilots saying and filming non curvature, I don't know how you can see one. Also i asked many pilots friend if they're pointing down the airplane every 2 or 3 minutes trying to follow the "earth curvature " so they don't end up flying into space. and non of them told me so. Is strange how modern science tey to explain that, a basic and simple concept foe any child to understand, but is complicated. Same thing flying east and west take the same time, even if the earh is spinning 1000+ miles/hour. simply non sence. We need to go back to basics, use our 5 sences, and believe what our sences experiment. Good luck

[@angelsndaisies6188]

Wolfie wants a video of what you did. Nevermind that there are hundreds of videos on KZbin showing this type of experiment.

[@xrprophet3523]

Each telescope would have to be pointed up because everything in the sky is up on either a Globe or a Flat Earth so you haven't proven anything with that point. The direction for North is different in both places on the Flat Earth so you need to reorient the Telescope for Sydney as if it were sitting at 151 degrees E and LA as if it were sitting at 118 degrees west. Now you have two telescopes looking in totally different directions of the sky and the Ball Earth model is debunked. You put both telescopes facing in opposite directions based on an assumption the Earth is a Ball. There is no way to prove your point by putting two telescopes in the same room to represent the orientation from 2 separate locations without first assuming the shape of the Earth. You can't assume the shape and use that assumption to prove the shape. You obviously started with the assumption it's a ball when you set both telescopes facing opposite directions. It's obvious circular reasoning, pun intended. This proves absolutely nothing. Another fail.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Pete Van Veen. You completely missed the point of this video Pete. Honestly, I am not even going to bother trying to explain it to you.

[@xrprophet3523]

Wolfie6020 my point is there is no point. You never look to the ground to see the sky with the telescope no matter the location of the telescope or what shape the Earth is. What you should see if you pointed the Sydney or LA telescope down though your imaginary Globe is not evidenced by this video. You did a nice job of presenting the video though and the telescopes are very impressive.

[@nash.achiller1452]

The point is that everyone that owns a german equatorial mount, if they are north of the equator they all point their mounts due north and fine-tune the RA axis on the north celestial pole axis. And if they are south of the equator they all point their mounts due south and fine-tune their mounts on the south celestial pole axis. It does not matter if you are in USA or Russia, they all point north. And it does not matter if you are in South America or Australia, they all point South. There is only one north celestial pole, and there is only one south celestial pole, that is a fact. And this fact does not work on the flat earth model.

[@greglarson7689]

You don't know how an equatorial mount works. You need to learn how an equatorial mount works to follow the stars, and then explain how this mount would work to follow the stars of a flat earth. This should be easy for you.

[@nasanchez964]

Pete Van Veen just like flatheads say . RESEARCH IT!!

[@dazzathecameraman]

I'm sure that 99% of Flatties wont understand "a single axis of rotation" and its implications.

[@Wolfie6020]

+dazzathecamerman - You are right, I have been explaining that to them for months and it always falls on deaf ears. Hopefully it helps those sitting on the fence who will actually understand it.

[@dross6516]

dazzathecameraman....are you saying that 1% of flat Earthers died???

[@Wolfie6020]

+PW Honestly mate I have genuinely tried every possible way to flight plan on a Flat Earth and it simply does not work. There is far more to it than visualising origami in your head. It has to actually work in reality and it does not. My point with the equatorial mount is another that simply cannot work on any Flat Earth with the Sun and Moon doing circles above us. Try this friendly challenge, and I promise you there is a correct answer. Will you find it? Take a Hula Hoop and tell me from what position can you spin a laser 360 degrees in one single axis of rotation and keep the beam on the Hula hoop the entire time? Please think about that carefully and let me know your answer. There is one.

[@dazzathecameraman]

Yes, I get it Phuket Word Salad, we must abandon the proven laws of physics which work so well that we can produce Globe Earth astronomy simulators which accurately predict all manner of events such as sunrises, sunsets, seasons, solstices, equinoxes, lunar phases, solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, transits, occultations etc days, weeks, months, years and decades in advance yet are somehow wrong. It's all wrong and false because da erf is flat because you kant see any kurvachure of da erf from see level. Now, could you please show me that working Flat Earth model that accurately predicts sunrises, sunsets, seasons, solstices, equinoxes, lunar phases, solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, transits, occultations etc days, weeks, months, years and decades in advance like our faulty fake globe Earth model does?

[@Wolfie6020]

+PW - oh yes very close... Yes, imagine the laser is laying flat on a record player turntable - then you simply rotate the turntable and the laser beam moves horizontally around the room 360 degrees. Where do you put the hula hoop so that the laser traces a path exactly around the hula hoop?

[@LawofMoses]

how does the axis not become affected by the wobble can you leave the telescope in exactly the same place every day all year and see the Pole star? If so how can we be moving around the galaxy?

[@Wolfie6020]

+TheNarrowPath - The axis is affected by the wobble - that is why the position of Polaris changes in the calibration reticle. Didn't you watch the video? I explained that.

[@Shedir]

Wolfie6020, can i download and share your video on my channel?

[@Wolfie6020]

+Shedir. Yes please feel free to share this video. Thank you.

[@gene546]

No, I don't agreed with you with this supposed experiment. First of all, no body knows exactly the real position of the continents nor its true dimensions: how wide and large are they? If you go by the globe model; your coordinates are not as the geodesic maps shows. Really, I am not making this up. You cannot rely on the official globe. I am not saying that the earth is flat but, however; yo're oversimplifying your experiment.

[@Wolfie6020]

+gene546 Sorry, yes we do know the positions and the sizes of the continents - perfectly. I can fly my aircraft from Sydney Australia to Hawaii, thousands of miles in zero visibility and using nothing more than GPS and WGS84 line up with the runway and land within meters of the centreline without even seeing it. That would be completely impossible if we did not know the exact shape of the Earth perfectly. I do rely on the official Globe - I trust my life to it every time I take off. I have 10,000 hours of relying on it and it has always worked perfectly, it has never failed. Not once.

[@gene546]

To fly in total blindness has nothing to do with the experiment. I can integrate or derive a equation in blindness because, I know the rules; the problem here is that you cannot construct an experiment just because you know your position on the map. The problem is not position but the real shape of the earth, which it is a little more complicated than you think. As I said: your attitude is unrealistic, and oversimplified. Thanks for the response

[@Wolfie6020]

+gene546 Ok but 30+ years of actually flying around the Real Earth is good enough for me. I see curvature with my own eyes so what do you want me to say? Coming here and telling me the Earth is Flat is like telling a New Yorker the Statue of Liberty is not real. See the problem?

[@gene546]

Man, I was a student at the Jesuit seminar in Guadalajara, Mexico for nine years, and believe me I do had travel quite a lot from Mexico to the USA, and Rome, including Spain; never, but never saw curvature. The flatness was all ways to eyes level. From 35,000 feet which it is the actual altitude of the planes traveling from East to West. The view is total flatness. You know that, I am pretty sure. NB Pardon my grammar, I am an ESL. And Thanks again. By the way: Jesuits are not making any conspiracy to impose a one World Order. God bless

[@gene546]

Man, forget about this useless debate. Either you are in total denial or shortsighted. As I said before, I don't go by the flat earth model, but, undoubtedly, the earth is not a globe. A very simple example suffices. Heavens is NOT a globe; God's kingdom, than, why If we are in the likeness of his image also our place must be the same shape as that of the Creator. Common sense. God bless

[@brickfilms1954]

Excellent video Sir! I'm glad to see that more people are beginning to fight back against this Flat Earth nonsense using science and logic.

[@morrison511]

the scientific method proves a flat motionless plane, not a spinning wet ball of dirt

[@sothca20001]

IDIOT!!! Observation, math, science & history prove the early PROTESTant Reformers were right. The earth is a sphereoid.

[@bloodsportstar]

Don't call ppl names who don't believe what you do. It only makes you look irrational.

[@slysparkane808]

Boom!

[@ShawnHufford]

Sly Sparkane "oh my god":)

[@nathangrant1824]

it's not a meme just because the two of you say it is :p

[@slysparkane808]

maybe if you adjust your volume..

[@shmick4203]

I think chippy the chipmunk has finally figured out the Earth is a Globe.

[@Wolfie6020]

+shmick It was inevitable.

[@JohnMichaelson]

Confession time: I thought the gimmick was hilarious (in a good way).

[@Wolfie6020]

+John Michaelson You mean about Chippy? I agree and I actually like the guy because his videos were fun to watch. To be honest he is one of the few Flat Earther's I actually had confidence in that he would eventually realise the truth. He does detailed research and he thinks about things and realises when they don't work. That makes him smarter than the average Chipmunk. Anyway i wish him well and I stay out of his space.

[@HisingeHus]

Excellent video Wolfie! I've just bought a P900 and will be posting videos shortly aswell! Keep up the good work!

[@Wolfie6020]

+SpaceOrb Multimedia. Thanks, the P900 is awesome and I look forward to your videos - subbed.

[@fredaves268]

Great work as usual !

[@morrison511]

no its not good work

[@jayskyfire]

Good initiative Wolfie6020! This flat Earth nonsense needs to stop already.

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

Southern Hemisphere star time lapse m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3WvgH6DmMtjd80

[@jonathanjomen]

+Brolyn he says, among other similar things: to my knowledge, it shouldnt be there - it doesn't look right ... How? Why? What is his knowledge? The term "University" comes from: the "universe" and "city" .... and I'm not even half through. I couldn't have made this s$$t up - but he did it. It gets progressively worse farther into it. ... and your description of what the link yields is *way* off reality. Why did you post this again? You look like a fool now - except when you meant it sarcastically ;)

[@morrison511]

it won't

[@ir8free]

Truth and Knowledge flatturds go nowhere, except backward.

[@morrison511]

that's fine, there's a cliff straight a head of the globers, keep going bud

[@kyzercube]

beautiful work Wolfie. My EQ5 mount also has a polar alignment telescope that is installed internally where the black cap at the right ascension axis is just like your EQ6 mount :) puu.sh/pLmBh/a9f881e08d.jpg

[@Wolfie6020]

+kyzercube. Nice!. This is one seriously addictive hobby.

[@MGoudsmits]

mine has no electric motor I still need to turn by hand and if not aligned than I need to turn two knobs

[@MoocheShwag]

You got that right. Dam

[@knagregory]

kyzercube _ look at me woolfie look at me, I have what you have. aren't we great!!! but when I use mine I see "planets" changing colors and shapes and things way beyond the supposed curve, but we are way to smart to question these things, right woolfie. we are smart.

[@MGoudsmits]

Can't Be Flatter yes they are smart and you are dumb. If you were smart you would also own a telescope. but your daddy won't let you because then you find out his homeschooling was wrong

[@rickdees251]

If the Earth is flat, how thick is it and how does one get there?

[@motokid6008]

rick dees Seismology doesn't exist on flat Earth so who the hell knows...

[@motokid6008]

Idea for a new video Wolfie : "No Field Rotation on a Flat Earth." That's ignoring the sun and moon. But with everything else. EQ mounts not only track with one axis, but they nullify field rotation which is what's truly needed for long exposure photography.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Motokid600 - Good idea, I'll add that to the list.

[@ricercaveritas7712]

You are like a cat who cant recognize self image in a mirror... this video proves the specularity of the skies not the spherical earth

[@Shedir]

Roby, ma che dici? quello di destra è settato per los angeles, e quello di sinistra per sydney. ha messo anche un foglio con la direzione del nord. il nord è nella direzione della freccia. davvero non hai capito nulla di questa spiegazione? ha dimostrato che le due montature su una terra piana non possono funzionare.

[@meeborggp9055]

+Roby Domina Care to elaborate?

[@Shedir]

+Meeborg GP he's in fatal system error.

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3WvgH6DmMtjd80

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

Link to a Southern Hemisphere star time lapse

[@ACommenterOnYouTube]

Another globe earth failure

[@kerseykerman7307]

Can you explain how it is a failure? Because the math presented in this video is flawless.

[@elonesnah]

You Tube You are yes

[@Wolfie6020]

+You Tube - what part of my video did you not understand?

[@christiandanielsson7151]

Hahaha you have lost the real shape discussion of our flat world a long time ago! But you keep looking at the stars and deep space to prove your ball! Our world does not rotate in 1600km/h on the equater an its flat every time we measure it!

[@Wolfie6020]

+Christian Danielson. How have you measured it personally Christian? What did you do? Every time I measure it I find the curvature easily... I have seen the way many Flat Earthers do their experiments. My kids can do a better job.

[@christiandanielsson7151]

I live near a big bay and there should be 45 meters of curvature from one side to the other. But it's not, it's flat plane and level. When you rise up in the air like a balloon the horizon is always eye level, that does not work on a ball. The horizon should drop underneath you when you rise. Like high altitude balloons show us a eye level horizon.

[@elonesnah]

You have to measure it, you cant just say the horizon is at eyelevel :)

[@RagicaltheUnhallowedKnight]

Superior Planet, how dare you post those logical and factual conclusions, scaring off the flerfers!

[@jguillaumes]

Hey, wolfie! Nice video, as usual. Just a little objection. It looks to me the angle between both polar axes would be not 68deg, but 180-68=112 degrees. The axes are inclined 34 degrees wrt the horizontal, so you have to consider the complementary angle. Or maybe I'm getting all wrong :)

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jordi Guillaumes Pons You are right Jordi. At one point my words did not match the visuals. You are 100% right. Thanks for the correction.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jordi - I watched the video again to see how I had described it. Yes you are right, in one part the way I showed it did not match 68 degrees - but the 68 degree difference is correct. Imagine the left telescope and extend the axis to the North - it goes down to the ground. Now take the axis from the white mount to the South (also to the ground) Where those axes meet it is 112 degrees on top and 68 degrees on the bottom. (Hope that makes sense) My visuals did not match my words correctly but it was not incorrect to say there is a 68 degree differences. Again, thanks for pointing it out as I do make mistakes and if it needed correction I would do it.

[@jguillaumes]

Wolfie6020 fair enough. I think my confusion comes from considering 'deviation btw scope angles' and 'angle btw polar axes'.

[@sNsReal]

Excelent explanation my friend, but im affraid that your explanation is too advanced for a flat earther.

[@ComradeDragon1957]

Flat Earth cant anything.

[@dennisswift8848]

not sure of all of this, but if I understand what you have set up here, it seems like your North American telescope would be upside down if you sent it in its current spatial orientation straight through the planet. So, if you turn it upside down right now, would it justify?

[@dennisswift8848]

I suppose I should add ASSUMING the earth is Round?

[@dennisswift8848]

OOPS! I guess i should have watched the whole video. I thought this was a "flat earther" video.

[@claycollins8973]

Flat earthers can't science, can't just plain think

[@strongtower1162]

This does not prove a globe however. Who says the "celestial poles" must be in alignment with each other? Both "poles" could simply be 34 degrees above the horizon (at 34 north and south latitudes), and simply rotating from our perspective, correct?

[@Wolfie6020]

+strongtower1. No, not correct because if I went to Melbourne I would have to change the angle of the telescope to about 37 degrees. If I took the white one to Seattle in the USA I would have to change it to 47 degrees. Where you are on the Earth affects the angle it is pointing. If you are at the Equator you make it zero degrees - i.e. the polar axis is zero - aligned parallel with the ground. That alone is enough to prove the Earth is not Flat. Sorry, it absolutely does prove a Globe - 100% - it absolutely proves the Earth is not Flat. There is no way around it. These EQ mounts simply will not work on a Flat Earth.

[@JohnMichaelson]

I used to think flat earthers just never traveled anywhere. Now I wonder if they even go outside and look up.

[@realwill5247]

what if its the firmament that is curved or distorted?

[@motokid6008]

Real Will Then you'll get curved and distorted constellations. Take the presently mapped sky. The celestial sphere. And try to warp it onto a hemispheric skydome. You can't. Not without destroying the sky as we know it.

[@Wolfie6020]

+Real Will - that makes the situation even worse - these mounts will not work on a rotating sky - a curved dome makes it worse.

[@yeticusrex1661]

Flat earthers argue with emotion and beliefs, and we argue with logic and reasoning.....it's like two ships passing each other in the night.

[@SerbianConspiracy]

But that aligned axis is not rotation axis.Rotation axis is 66,6 degree

[@therealzilch]

Wolfie- many years ago, I ground a 6" F/7 parabolic mirror and built an equatorial fork mounted Newtonian. Somehow I'm not a flat Earther.... cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott

[@brainwasheffect2087]

This would've never crossed my mind. Truly an excellent debunking of the flat earth.

[@wmgthilgen]

Setting up a telescope as you did on either side of the equator can only follow various astromomical objects correctly if and when they are set up on their particular side of the equator. Though one can set them up backwards, it will not follow any astromomical object even close.

[@Sphincter0]

calculate both distances from Polaris ?

[@Sphincter0]

perception

[@Sphincter0]

further away objects in the sky will be closer to horizon

[@LawofMoses]

Perhaps they have tricked us into thinking that the Pole star polaris in the north is also the southern cross but seen from australia looks different because of the distance and angle and thats why the stars also seem to circle as well.

[@JohnMichaelson]

And you think no one in all of humanity's history noticed anything until modern-day flat earthers came along and made KZbin videos?

[@pir869]

The problem of the idea of a "flat earth",is that the curve of the earth is not as it should be observed, when either calculated or viewed,for example,the horizon at sea is flat left to right,but the distance observed left to right at the maximum view should have some visible curve,also at sea(sea level is used due to land having too many peaks and troughs )distance able to be observed is greater than the distance calculated. Degrasse tyson says the earth is an oblate spheroid,but nasa pics are all spherical,not to mention the continent sizes have changed from 1972 to date,all the images are different. The pole star does not move,though some sort of parallax should be observed,from the movement of all astrological bodies are dynamic and in motion,the star positions have not changed,the expanding universe should display some sort of change in these bodies,long exposure images show this ,with the pole star and all other bodies revolving around it. There is also an issue with nasa,and the cgi they put out,whether ISS or supposed views of the moon and earth,just terrible,we have eyes and can see,naval ships targeting with laser lock at over 90 miles,where the target should be well bellow the horizon and out of line of sight,we don't target with lasers through the sea,but by line of sight,as laser light is a coherant beam of one single frequency that has all photons lined up parallel to create a single straight beam. If anyone can explain how this and many more problems of curve vs distance vs calculated curve vs calculated horizon,i'd love to know. Personaly i don't care if it's bannana shaped,the official state is sphere,where by a curve can be calculated,but it doesn't work.distance squared times drop in inches,so after 1 mile,1x1x8=8 inches of drop at 1 mile,but at 2 miles,2x2x8,not 16 inches but 32 inches of curve,at 10 miles ,10x10x8=800 inches(66.6666ft) of curve,seeing as the earth is a compound curve if the horizon at 22 miles is 10 miles wide,then surely a curve should be seen left to right,though at 22 miles distance,i think the horizon will be more than 10 miles wide,all this done at sea so all surface is at the same level. As we go forward in distance the expected drop in curve gets worse,yet lake superior is 60 miles accross,chicago can be seen neither naked eye or telescope should see it,but it does,temperature inversions,and all the other excuses for this cannot explain all the other problems with the curve. But seeing as i have never gone up high enough to see for myself if the earth is a glode or flat plain i can only use the trigonometry in math books,remember NASA pictures show a sphere,not an oblate sphereoid. Also seeing as i studied physics and math to acquire my qualifications(electronics design technician) i cannot hold my casio fx82l with slight regard if the numbers won't work.1+1=2,not what someone says it is,but 2. I do hope people will investigate this,than taking my or any official word on this,as science does not go on what we say,it is through observation and change of that which is observed,which can be called scientific research. This is why children go on field trips,if we only needed to take the word of a science book field trips would not be needed,proof is tangible ,hear say is not,too many people have measured or at least tried to measure the curve,as described in text books,one such is the "bedford level experiment",a case of observed science using the distance squared x drop,with no change recorded. Just incase,does anyone know fluid dynamics?,ISS,medusa,hair spray,air currents will cause hair to act as if in water,when in the ISS weightless enviroment,it should flow and eb,but this is not what is seen,we also observe suspension wires(acrobat),blue screen fails,and movement of astronauts which suggest a sudden shift in the ISS position.

[@johnnym6700]

Wolfie6020 Please can you show us a photograph of one of the planets or even the moon from one of the largest optical telescopes in the world such as VLT or SALT. There aren't any? I wonder why????

[@motokid6008]

Because they're used and built to observe the outer limits of the observable universe. Not the planets which anyone in their backyards can study. That being said... www.researchitaly.it/en/news/images-of-jupiter-with-vlt/ www.eso.org/sci/facilities/develop/integration/developments/itc.html www.mpe.mpg.de/~hbrunner/astrophys.net/news/2002/020131_eso_saturnio.html commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Uranus_System_(VLT)_-_ESO.jpg

[@Wolfie6020]

+JohnnyM Motokid600 beat me to it. I can see the Moon and Planets perfectly with my Telescope. Any comment on my video? Do you understand why the way these telescopes work absolutely proves the Earth is not flat?

[@JohnMichaelson]

Who is "us"? You and the rest of the lazy flat earthers who can't figure out Google but expect the rest of the world to stop accepting reality as we know it and go, "Derp, can't see curve. It's flat".

[@johnnym6700]

Motokid600 + Wolfie6020 The image from VLT is pathetic for a 500 million dollar (10 m) telescope! Not much better than your 8"! I emailed a Dr of Astronomy at SALT and his words were "So with SALT we don't really have pictures of the moon or planets because they are far too bright for our instruments! Even at the shortest exposure time, the CCD would saturate and you wouldn't get a nice image" LOL (SALT mirror = same size as VLT!!!!) Someone is lying here! Ok, so Nasa lies, SpaceX lies, VLT lies, SALT lies....seems there is a pattern here???? Why would every institution connected to space lie??? They lie because they must be covering something up! What is it???

[@johnnym6700]

+Wolfie6020 Mount the tripod on a truck and focus on some stars. Now drive the truck at 66000 mph and see if you still see the same stars in your viewfinder? Its all very well having the right mount for the telescope to counteract the earths rotation but you need another mount to counteract earths movement around the sun at 66000 mph?

[@jayizzett]

can curvature actually be measured

[@Wolfie6020]

+Jay Izzett. Yes.

[@jayizzett]

Wolfie6020 do share. it will end all the fe talk.

[@JohnMichaelson]

If the sum of all human endeavors in the field of geodetic surveying, rocketry, modern navigation, flight, etc. haven't ended it for someone, nothing said here will. They reason illogically and depend on the rankest forms of denial and conspiracy to keep their myth afloat.

[@jayizzett]

John Michaelson if we can messure the distance to pluto I'm sure we can teach students how to check the curvature formula in schools

[@meeborggp9055]

They do and most of them are capable of getting the right results. But some can not but instead of trying harder they just give up and invent a cover story (flat earth) to hide their inability to understand.

[@Justwantahover]

There are heaps of things anyone can see in a telescope that proves globe. Venus phases and apparent size. Venus and Mercury always near the sun. All other planets anywhere in the sky in relation to the sun. Jupiter's moons change position and can be seen in stages overnight. Saturn's moons change positions and can been see in stages. Phases of the moon. Craters on the moon appear like a slender ellipse at the edges and the crater shapes progressively become more and more circular as we venture to the middle of the moon image. Set a telescope up one meter from the surface of a lake or sea and focus it onto the water horizon. You will see the very top wavetops in unprecedented detail against a sky or land background. No "blurry" horizon like a FE should have, but clearly defined wavetops as sharp as can be.

[@onmhyway]

But the angle measurements would be unchanged if taken from within a concave earth.

[@tjwiets6691]

Woflie, I'm not sure why, but some channel called "Flat Earth" has mirrored this video today.

[@crazyguy313youtubify]

On a round earth, I have to question that an Australian can even see Polaris, the North Star, from way down under the Equator, esp. if you're facing South. Doesnt make sense if the North Star is in the northernmost region of God's Glass Dome. But since the world's flat, and Australia and the US. are just opposite each other from the North Pole (consult the UN Flag, or Flat Earth maps to confirm) then obviously we would point our telescopes towards each others' continent, and rise up towards Polaris, at slightly different angles, since Australia is further outward from the North Pole, and towards the Antarctic circle. I'll bet that if someone was good with geometry, they could place the exact location of the North Star above Earth, thus calculate the height of the dome above the North Pole.. Most any airlines navigator should be able to help with the number of miles from America to Australia, and the angles to set each others telescopes.

[@elonesnah]

And you cant see polaris from Australia

[@TheNinthGeneration1]

Garland Parks he does not see Polaris, that’s why he aligns the telescope using the octanus constellation and not polaris

[@TheNinthGeneration1]

Garland Parks also while the telescope in LA would point north, the telescope in the south is pointing towards the ground when its facing north, and when its observing the stars its looking south

[@gowdsake7103]

they cannot thats the point of the mount

[@TheNinthGeneration1]

Garland Parks you mentioned a flat earth map, can you produce a map that matches reality? Especially with the dimensions of Australia and the southern celestial charts and the south celestial pole one that also explains the eotvos effect

[@keggerous]

I wonder if there would be a way to do one continuous camera shot of you setting up both telescopes in Australia and doing this demonstration, then flying all the way to the northern hemisphere and doing another demonstration . . . That's kind of dumb actually now that I think of it.

[@uphollandlatic]

I have posted this on the follow up video. I’m not a Flatearther but I didn’t understand the equatorial mount; I do now. I own the ‘very basic’ telescope and mount shown at the start of the video. I’ve never fully understood the mount. Please, Wolifie, can you make more instructional videos to help us enjoy the wonders of space and how to photograph it?

[@Postghost]

Wait, why the fuck do i watch these things?! I already KNOW the Earth is a damn sphere...

[@Wolfie6020]

+Postghost. I actually stopped watching FE videos for that same reason

[@konteezy203]

He should show the print on the actual globe toy that says "not for educational purposes. Only for show." Lol

[@Wolfie6020]

+Kontour Keitt. Would you like to see the print on the navigational programs I use to fly real aircraft around the Earth with absolute precision? They are Globes too and they are used for "operational" purposes . WGS84 - is a spheroid - that is how all international aircraft flight plan and additional distance is factored into the flight plans due to the altitude resulting in a larger circumference than at the surface - this is a fact that the Flat Earthers choose to ignore.

[@michaelcole506]

One could say it is perspective and air density that won't allow a telescope to see the star BUT we aren't trying to SEE the star as you have clearly showed. You are merely pointing to its location relative to two different locations on Earth. Now, on a flat Earth at a height equal to Mt. Everest, your scope shouldn't drop any lower than a tenth of a degree to point to a star on the northern horizon from Sydney. Here I have tried to give an elevation advantage (huge one) and it still doesn't work. To deny your claim would deny the ability of those scope mounts (computerized), which DO work. I just asked my wife if we could buy a telescope. Lol

[@gowdsake7103]

I bet she looked at the price and ripped you a new one !

[@sleat]

Yay! You finally got a mount for a biiiig telescope! Safety tip, don't let that tripod stay wet. I have the same one. A galvanic reaction between the bronze grub screws that hold the extendable legs, and the ferrous castings that hold the legs will seize them up solid. Some WD-40 will drive the water away from the grubs. The legs look like stainless, but they will still pit with moisture.

[@Wolfie6020]

+sleat, Thanks for the tip - I bring it indoors mostly after use but will definitely use the WD40 tomorrow.

[@sleat]

The shiny long thumb-screw that holds the eyepiece shelf underneath is also likely to corrode from dew, but the painted shelf, of course, won't. You obviously don't want WD-40 on any of your optics. I know you know, but maybe some others might catch their optics with overspray. I just finished re-making one of the bronze grubs on the lathe, since it broke from the torque of getting it loose and had to be drilled. They are essentially just 1.5mm thread M10 bolts with thumb-heads, only made of bronze/brass with a friction plate underneath.

[@MoocheShwag]

Use Tri-flow WD40 Sucks

[@sleat]

iCoustic Ken Sucks for what? It certainly does keep moisture away, and it gets down screwthreads well. We're not really lubricating bike chains, or anything so much as trying to discourage moisture turning up.

[@MoocheShwag]

sleat WD40 Water Displacement Number 40. That's all it's good for. It will do that for a short amount of time.

[@Bellthorian]

I hate to burst your bubble but.... In long range Artillery you have to correct for BOTH the curvature of the Earth AND the rotation of the Earth. Here are some links to the US Navy Ordinance and Gunnery fire control Volume two. The first link is a manually computed fire control solution for a 5 inch 38 caliber gun shooting at a target 10,100 yards away. If you will notice under the Trunnion and Curvature section the correction for the curvature of the Earth is entered at 21.5 feet. www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-17-D.html In this link is a range table for a US Navy 8 inch 55 caliber gun. If you look at pages 449-452 they list the corrections made for the rotation of the Earth AKA the Coriolis Effect. Notice how those values change depending on your latitude. www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/FC-APPENDIX-B-8IN-55.html My experiences as a gunners mate on board the USS Iowa BB61 proves the Earth is round and rotates. In the late 80's we still used the MK-8 Rangekeeper analog fire control computer that was used to control the guns in WW2. While a amazing piece of analog technology it did not have the ability to correct for the Earth's curvature or Rotation in real time. Those corrections had to be entered manually into the computer. We had to do this EVERY time we fired the guns. If we did not our accuracy would be WAY off the mark. Unless someone can provide a reasonable explanation on why we would correct for curvature AND rotation of the Earth with EVERY shot if these things did not exist.

[@nathangrant1824]

+david smith quality evidence and information, dude, but you are aware that this channel is debunking the flat earth?

[@christopherellis2663]

This is same as if one were setting up sundials. The gnomon is parallel with the Axis of Rotation. Wherever on earth it might be.☆ in reality, the axial alignment of this pair of mounts is parallel.☆ these matters were common knowledge, many centuries before NASA was thought of.

[@noell8460]

they wouldn't be aligned though? it would be opposite wouldn't it? if they were looking at the same point in space from north and south hemispheres, they would seem to be looking in the same direction if they in the same room, but actually in sydney and cali they would seem to be at different angles relative to the ground wouldn't they, in Sydney it would look at the ground while up to the sky in Cali, but when put in the same room they would b looking in same direction, or is that what you're saying and I don't realise it lol

[@Wolfie6020]

+Norton Kelly, Yes, that is right, what you say is correct and that is what I am saying too. The position of the telescope would be different in each location looking at the same object in the sky. If they are in the same room looking at the same object they will be in the same direction but if they were "simulating" what it would be in each location then they would be different.

[@Cruelty1633]

The equatorial mount hypothesis does not account for gravitational lensing, water lensing, and electromagnetic fields. Look up Hugh Ross' work on gravity telescopes. It is pretty easy for an equatorial mount to work on a body with gravitational lensing of 45 degrees or more. Which is in itself, a gravitational distortion comparable to an event horizon, as gravity would have to be bended and forced into a weird phenomenon if the center of gravity is not a sphere. The hubble is there to see light without atmospheric distortion. Atmospheric distortion exists, which must be accounted for. Mirages distort light even at short distances, and now people talk about using telescopes vs stars through the atmosphere. Without removing the atmosphere, one cannot verify the level of distortion and how many degrees the equatorial mount merely has to adjust for. In mathematics, getting the right answer is only half the issue. You have to get your work right too. Which is defined as the proof.

[@JohnMichaelson]

You've never set up or aligned one of these telescopes have you? You've never taken any long exposures through one, or used one for a prolonged period. Other than words to drop your whole hypothesis is completely fictional and made up on the spot by someone desperately hoping something will stick to the wall and be taken seriously even though there's literally nothing to back it up.

[@sandyredcloud4346]

Cruelty1633 flattard also believed were in a dome, with no gravity

[@motokid6008]

Cruelty1633 Sooo you believe the Hubble Space Telescope exists?The lensing you describe has nothing to do with the celestial sphere. That IS the structure of our sky... Our atmosphere is not thick enough to make different constellations and a second celestial pole. Even if it was "lensing" doesn't... create new stars. ( Honestly, wtf? )The Earths gravity is not strong enough to bend light nor is its magnetism.

[@Bellthorian]

Great video Wolfie....however for a flat earth believer it will appear to be sorcery and they will want to burn you at the stake. Asking flat earth believers to think makes their head hurt, than they get cranky,

[@J0J0Z]

Nice vid bro, good work! These guys are really crazy....

[@ricercaveritas7712]

The Telescope on the left is clearily stationed on octantis star then just rotated the telescope by 180° to "find" the polaris (only theoretically though xD)... but I wonder how this guy can actually find the polaris without stationary the telescope on the octantis i'm really curious,,,,,,

[@brolynsmokesalot1097]

He's a greasy shill that gets away with out trying to be funny

[@ricercaveritas7712]

+Wolfie6020 dont spam time lapses please.... the southern stars are just a specular image of the northern stars... do you know how works a "mirror"? xD NOW I bet you ask me why the the southern stars are different from northern stars....the answer is: because the specular image is aimed from "another point of view"...

[@ricercaveritas7712]

the dome works like a concave mirror then any observer at the southern hemisphere will look the own octantis in the own south direction... that's why this images i.imgur.com/ayo01He.jpg are absolutely explained into the flat earth model... i hope i'm clear ;-)

[@ricercaveritas7712]

+Raging S the northern stars are in the center of the dome instead the southern stars (or reflected stars) are all around the dome then ONLY the outer ring of the dome is reflective that's why it reflects only the center of the dome from our point of view.... This mechanism is perfectly functional... ".. the stars and all other objects would be mirrored..." actually mainly in the southern hemisphere there are "two sun" or "two moon" phenomena (there are many videos on yt)... "...But the southern sky has completely different stars, constellations, and so on..." I already said that it reflect "another point of view" of the northern stars...

[@TheNinthGeneration1]

Roberto Dòmina you do realize that in the northern hemisphere you can see the big and small dippers right? And in the Southern Hemisphere those two are impossible to see and instead you can see the southern cross that is impossible to see in the northern hemisphere, and the very bright Polaris is impossible to see if you are observing the southern sky

[@RayleighCriterion]

Can anyone prove that Polaris is below the horizon from Sydney Australia? What if Polaris was just outside your field of view?

[@JohnMichaelson]

And where do you think it's hiding from everyone in the entire southern hemisphere? Behind yonder bush over thataway?

[@turbobrain1342]

Incredible experiment showing clear evidence of a globe earth. Thank you for the evidence and the use of your equipment and time.

[@MrTrollBeast]

What do the stars look like through the telescope

[@Wolfie6020]

+Zlatan Ibrahimovic. I would describe them as sharp white dots through the telescope. I will try to get a video for you.

[@JohnMichaelson]

Could I suggest perhaps Acrux/Alpha Crucis? It's a beautiful double star that I'll probably never see. I don't know if the camera can pick out both components.

[@Wolfie6020]

+John Michealson - Sure, I will do my best on that one. I see Arcturus beautifully each night - it arcs right across the sky and I can see it from the Loungeroom.

[@JohnMichaelson]

Actually, I would suggest Albireo instead for your camera try. It's got great color and it's more widely separated. I forget just because you're down there you do still see a huge swath of the northern sky!