Exactly - you got it. The star-trails of the annual translational motion is the parallax ellipses. Far too small to see by just having a look at the sky. There is no rotation involved in the annual orbit around the Sun - only translation. Regards, Regner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quoting j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>: > Regner, > > Yes, I agree also. But my point is.... How can you tell were the annual > axis is, based on star trails... you can't. With a baseline of essentially > zero, any annual axis we propose collapses into the nightly axis... That is > why a translation is not detectable using star trail. > > JA > > Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > J A, the point is that in the bottom figure, the two axes are coincident, > in the top figure they are not. You can't change that by any tilting of > the figures. I fully support Allen here. > > Regards, > > Regner > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - > > > Quoting Allen Daves : > > > No they are not the same..there is a differnce in rotaion aound the > celestial > > axis (bottom) and just looking at the celestial axis while in rotation > > (TOP)..one is translational the other is not........rotation is a fuction > of > > xy around z thoes variable are not identical in both diagrams........look > > again they are not the same....I think i hjust found where the difficulty > for > > you is.. > > > > > > > > j a wrote: > > May I point out that if the basline is zero - then both drawings are > > exactly the same. > > > > Allen Daves wrote: > > > > The point of the non HC drawing is simply that although that is not how > the > > HC folk would describe the mechanics of HC, that is the only mechanics > that > > would allow and are capable of replicating the nightly motion in the > annual > > orbital motion with no other motions perceivable and no distinction > between > > the two! Therefore, although no one would draw the solar system that way > > (bottom drawing) that is the only way that you can archive hiding the > annual > > motion behind the nightly and making them indistinguishable from each > other. > > The point of the top drawing is that it cannot and will not replicated the > > nightly without demonstrating a secondary annual motion. As I said the two > > drawings are not equivalent. The reason the top drawing is not capable of > > hiding the annual motion in the nightly (as the bottom can and would) is > that > > rotation is s function of x& y vectors around the z axis. If the two > vectors > > and z axis do not say constant then they cannot produce the same thing as > > the nighty rotation where all three variables do stay constant. You see > the > > slight of hand that HC uses is the failure to point out that not only is > the > > orbital motion of the celestial axis transnational but they imply that the > > annual orbit itself rides the 23 degree plane (That is why there examples > > try to emphasize and get you to look at and only focus on the change in > > latitude of the camera around the earth annually and how that "rides" the > > 23.44 degree celestial plane) The top drawing depicts a camera that > rotates > > in one direction while looking at another. The problem is it is backwards > > from what it would have to be it were to hid the annual motion. It rotates > in > > a different direction then the nightly while looking at the nightly. While > > the bottom drawing is a camera the is looking at the nightly rotation > while > > in a orbit that also mimics the nightly rotation. The two drawings are not > > equivalent and only the bottom one is and would hide and make the annual > and > > nightly indistinguishable from each other. > > > > > > I attach it here again for any late comers....... > > > > Jack Lewis wrote: > > Dear Allen, > > Just a point of clarification. In the 'non HC' drawing the camera is in > one > > position whilst the earth rotates below it. Is this deliberate or should > the > > camera positions be the same as the 'HC' drawing? This would mean that the > > ONLY difference between the two drawings is the angle of the ecliptic with > > respect to the stars. > > > > Jack > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Allen Daves > > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:44 AM > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you > > > > > > One last thing, for the evening.....They say a picture speaks a thousand > > words...... Hopefully you will all be able to see this....brand new > attached > > diagram. it illustrates the fundamental error in your argument........... > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it > now.