-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:37:06 -0800 (PST)Oh yea Nevile, I did not show it on Ja's, but it would be better if he takes out the green lines that run thought the earth, I think. The reason i suggest that is because of the whole confusion about the difference between viewing a axis and where the axis is in reality. The significance determines what would and would not constitute a parallax of both the celestial and ecliptic axis over the course of a year. You cannot claim parallax the celestial over a year as a cause without parallax-ing the ecliptic over the course of the same year. That is a key point that many are not getting. The reason they are not getting it is because of where the location of the axis is for real and not just some equivalent/ parallel view of it...Also I corrected the last post too here......
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I agree Nevile,I would suggest the following change for simplicity..? ( see attached)..although the base line means that we can look at the axis from any location on the earth, it does matter where the ecliptic axis really is. I think this is important, because moving from one side of the globe to the other side does not parallax the ecliptic axis even though we may view it from anywhere on the globe and see the same thing. I’m also convinced that is a point of misunderstanding for many..(The difference between viewing a axis and where the axis is in reality & why that is important)........I’m including mine here for you Ja so as to make my garbled words clear as mud,...(It was drawn in 3d too, notice the earth is not facing the same side in each view as well as the shine point hehhehehhe) ..... but It is not as cool as yours!.....:D
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:JA,
So confident am I that your upgraded 3D diagram will illustrate both necessary (HC) rotations, that I would like to ask for your permission to use it on the Celestial Poles web page. Full credit will be given to you, of course, unless you do not wish it to be. (For the purpose of such accrediting, perhaps you could supply your name, unless you are happy with "Picture by JA" !)
You, Allen, Jack and others have produced fine diagrams, but perhaps the 3D nature of yours will make it the most suitable for the paper. (Jack came close, too, with his 3D effort. And Allen will use his own diagrams for his own pages, no doubt, since they are of very high quality and contain a lot of information.)
If we can get this issue settled in the positive (from an anti-HC point of view), then we should all attempt to broadcast it as fast and as widely as possible.
Neville