Sent: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:59:23 +1100Exactly - 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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.
> 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.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Quoting Allen Daves :
> > No they are not the same..there is a differnce in rotaion aound the
> > axis (bottom) and just looking at the celestial axis while in rotation
> > (TOP)..one is translational the other is not........rotation is a fuction
> > 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
> > 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
> > HC folk would describe the mechanics of HC, that is the only mechanics
> > would allow and are capable of replicating the nightly motion in the
> > orbital motion with no other motions perceivable and no distinction
> > 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
> > motion behind the nightly and making them indistinguishable from each
> > 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
> > rotation is s function of x& y vectors around the z axis. If the two
> > 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
> > slight of hand that HC uses is the failure to point out that not only is
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > position whilst the earth rotates below it. Is this deliberate or should
> > 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
> > 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