JA,
Your second paragraph is quite a mixture of ideas and models, but your essential argument, if I understand you correctly, is this: since the nightly rotation always produces the same set of star trails, then it is not possible for these to draw out another circle, because they are simply always in the same place.
This is a subtle argument and I had to pray for guidance before I considered it.
My response is the following:
You and I take a 35-mm SLR camera each, mount them
on tripods and place them in our back gardens. One in your garden, wherever it is, and one in mine, such that I cannot see your camera and you cannot see mine.
In the heliocentric system, the cameras move. In the geocentric system, the stars move. Forget any motion of the World for now.
Now, unbeknown to me, you point your camera at a star and, unbeknown to you, I point mine at a star (it does not have to be a different star, but the chances are that it will be).
I rotate my camera through 360 degrees about an axis whilst the shutter is open for one minute. I will obtain circular stars trails on the emulsion.
You rotate your camera through 360 degrees about a different axis whilst the shutter is open for two minutes. you will obtain circular trails on your emulsion.
Does the rotation of my camera affect in any way the image that you have obtained on your camera? Does the rotation of your camera affect in any way the image that I have
obtained on my camera? The answer to both questions is 'no'. I must agree, but I would point out that if your camera is pointed to a different direction in the sky then mine, then we would record different star trails. And combining our pictures would produce no useful knowledge. True.
These rotations are isolated. The stars are fixed in this system, so as long as the two components remain isolated there is no way that the movement of one camera affects what is recorded by the other.
We now let the World do the rotating while our cameras are in some (different) way fixed to it.
So, instead of my rotating my camera, I fix the tripod to the ground and align it such that the optical axis of the camera is parallel to the celestial polar axis. I leave the shutter open for 6 hours, whilst the World allegedly rotates about its axis.
The question is exactly the same: Does the image I am obtaining in any way affect the image that you
are obtaining? The answer again is 'no'. Remember that this is the heliocentric system where the stars are fixed. I still agree, but I would point out that if I fix my camera exactly as you descibe yours, then we would record the same thing, maybe not the same portion of any particular star trail, but if overlayed they would match up.. True.
Night after night, the answer is the same. The camera motions are isolated.
But the same must be true in reverse, with you aligning the optical axis of your camera with the ecliptic polar axis and allowing the camera to rotate through 360 degrees over 12 months as the World allegedly trundles around its orbit of the Sun. This will in no way affect what I see in the heliocentric system, but you will still have produced the star trails about the ecliptic pole if heliocentrism is correct.
Locking the camera onto the ecliptic pole is easy, we lock them on stars all the time, and the ecliptic pole
is just like a star position. (is the ecliptic the same as the Annual axis?) if I did this, I would record an annual trail. Locking the camera axis to the annual axis will produce the annual trail. Thats why we get a nightly trail from a stationary camera but cannot get an annual trail from a stationary camera. True. Also, if I lock my camera axis to any imaginary axis, I can produce annual star trails for that axis. Not true, because now you have nothing, real or imaginary, that is going to be rotating the camera. You are confusing alignment with rotation.
In talking to you and Allen. It has occurred to me that maybe I've misunderstood a particular point. Let me spell out a few things that you each can simply answer as true or not true. This should help me, or maybe help me help you, or help me help you help me figure out what we are missing in what the other is saying. ;-)
Pleae respond true or not true to the following:
1) The demonstration of the "dual axis proof" is that the Nightly circle made by polaris is exactly the same every day of the year and in the exact same spot, when recorded by a camera that is stationary with respect to the ground it is affixed too. True.
2) The demonstration of the "dual axis proof" is that the Annual circle made by polaris is not evident, when recorded by a camera that is stationary with respect to the ground it is affixed too, when pictures are taken at 24 hours intervals. Not true. The camera has to be moving in this instance with respect to the ground, but the orientation of the camera is always such that the photographic film always has its bottom edge, say, nearest to the World's geographical polar axis.
3) The demonstration of the "dual axis proof" is that the Annual circle made by polaris is not
evident, when recorded by a camera that is stationary with respect to the ground it is affixed too, when pictures are taken at 23 hour 56 minute intervals. Not true.
4) The demonstration of the "dual axis proof" is that the Annual circle made by polaris is not evident, when recorded by a camera that is rotated to stay parrallel with the annual axis, when pictures are taken at 24 hours intervals. Not entirely true, because the camera is simply aligned, not rotated. You must not lose sight of the fact that the rotation of the camera must always be caused by the World's alleged motion.
5) The demonstration of the "dual axis proof" is that the Annual circle made by polaris is not evident, when recorded by a camera that is rotated to stay parrallel with the annual axis, when pictures are taken at 23 hour 56 minute intervals. Not true.
Neville
