you in black Me in bule you in red Purple this time.... Allen, I'm not saying the axis doesn't or wouldn't exist...but that is what you are doing..?Whether or not proper steps are taken to record something is very important.Everything I am talking about is in recording it. that is the point it cannot exist for real and not be able to observe it I don't say that you can't observe it, I say that the camera following the 24 hour separated photo path around the annual axis, follows an exact copy of the nightly, therefore you are recording the nightly.NO it is only looking in another direction but it is not taking the same path. Again looking in a direction other then the rotation does not make it go away or even disapear, that is what you are saying.But take my challenge: I have but you are confusing where you draw the axis with the fact that in order for a axis to be real you have to move to either side of it.. i can daw the axis anywhere but i sill have to move to either side of it..the either side of the nightly and the annual are not in the same location.This is the rub.... this is what separates your conclusion from mine.... there are no other differences.... If they were not in the same location, Yes there is huge difference.....one is a roation around the celestial axis, the other is simply looking in a differnt direction but not rotating around the celestial axis.. The axis are real not just arbitray imagination...It is rotating around the ecliptic axis (sun) looking in a different direction then the (sun)roation does not make it disapear.period!.....that is the difference. I agree you would have to record something different that does not show up in reality.... will you admit that if they were in the same location that I would be right? They cant be, they are subetended to each other at 23.44 degrees.. simply looking at it does not mean you are there????..If they were it would not be two axis in rotation in two different planes..!?....you cannot colapse them into one and the same thing.!? If I'm right you can and if you're right you cannot No it is a fact you cannot and Even Regner agreed.? Take your drawing of the nightly and annual.... but remove the annual baseline which confuses the issue.. if you did that then the second axis would not exist and that would not be HC..it is that simple.... What has your camera revolved around? nothing now.... becuse you removed that axis of rotation. That is Not HC and you cant do that in reality. like i said since the annual axis ( around that sun) exist then if you move around that axis or paralax the axis (at the sun) then the rotation must manifest itself simply looking at the other axis while you rotate around the nightly does not make it go away observationaly or in reality.....see attached diagram the key is the paralax conditon of the axis in question not the baseline.... The entire differnce between our positions is whether 12 hours later and 6 months later the camera is the same spot or a different spot. .. the two are not equivalent just because you look at one while in motion around the other.!? .JA.... Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Ja The basline makes no diffenece where you view the ecliptic axis ....it does make a differnce for wether or not the axis exist or not or if you acctualy rotate around any given one or two axis.!? The rotation is not due to the baseline, it is due to the radial conditon around a given axis but you cant simply draw the ecliptic and celestial axis and call them the same axis !? two axis have two different sets of vectors otherwise there would be no such thing as a orbital sander since the basline makes no differnce there either becsue the two roataional axis exisit in the same baseline?...Simply looking in a different direction then the direction of travle dose not constitue moving in that other direction. There is a difference between looking in a direction and traviling in a direction..!?.The direction of travle determines which axis you are traviling around, regarudless of what the base line is. You either move in that direction or rotate in that directio or you do not. You cannot have a real rotaion who's basline is litterly 0. The point was that simple moving that distance will not change where the star in the sky is. It does make a differnce for wether or not a rotaion exist or not. If that were true then no rotaion could exist ever. Rotaion is a not just linear motion it is a xy vector function. You are not traviling around the celestial axis alone you are also in reality traviling around the ecliptic axis you cannot just call them one and the same thing. They are not ..again there is more then one angle in this rotation..look at the top view #1 and the side view#15.. j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, I'm serious here. Take your top diagram and your bottom diagram... on each one, collapse the baseline of the annual axis to zero..... You will be left with a diagram of the earth that demonstrates only the nightly star trails in both cases. You have said the baseline should make no difference and that it is essentially zero.... so include that in your drawing and then show me how you'll ever record an annual trail with a camera that is fixed to the earth ? JA... --------------------------------- Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.