# [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?

• From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:45:17 +1100
```Quoting Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Dear Regner,
>
> The point of the two diagrams was that each illustrate two types of motion,
> depending upon how you view them.
>
> In particular, the camera is always fixed to an immovable mount, and it is
> the World itself that moves.
>
> In Camera movement 2 negative.gif, attached again for your convenience, we
> have the essence of the two-axis argument.
>
> View it one way, and the optical axis of the camera always points toward the
> celestial polar axis,
>
Which is not what the figure shows, but I assume you ask me to imagine the
cameras pointed towards me (towards a celestial pole).

> irrespective of the time increments. This explains what
> we see, night after night, hour after hour, minute by minute, whether
> sidereal or solar.
>
Again the figure shows increments of Solar days, but I'll imagine what
happens on all time-scales.

> View it another way and the optical axis always points
> toward the ecliptic polar axis
>
No - it can't, because the two axes are not parallel.
You drawing is a bit misleading in that way, as I pointed out before
- the daily rotation occurs in a different plane from the yearly
translational movement around the Sun.

> (with the proviso, of course, that we tilt the
> paper, because the celestial and ecliptic axes are not coincident),
>
But with that tilt, you seem to imply that the equatorial plane suddenly
aligns with the ecliptic plane - that is a pretty selective tilt.
I you have such powers, I might change profession :-)
The cameras seem to be mounted on the Earth's equator (doesn't make
any difference but makes for simpler explanation).
pointing along
a) the equatorial plane extending out from the Earth (as shown on
b) the axis of Earth's daily rotation = celestial axis,  which
by definition is just perpendicular to the plane of case a).
When you tilt the paper, you also tilt the equatorial plane by the
same amount - which means it doesn't change anything.

With a camera on a fixed mount on Earth, with the camera pointed at a
particular angle with respect to the celestial pole, the camera will
only see that same great circle around the celestial pole.
The movement recorded at fixed Solar time over a year, will be the
same as that recorded over a single day, as I have stated before.

You can of course point your camera at the ecliptic pole and taking
pictures every sidereal day you'll keep seeing the ecliptic pole.
You'll in fact, see that same spot around the ecliptic pole, with
the exact same orientation - it will not rotate during the year.
At any other times, however, you'll see other parts of the great
circle at 23.4' from the pole.
The pole can, of course, be either the North or the South pole.

> each24-mean-solar-hour step.
> This explains what we should see (but do not), for
> exactly the same reason.
>
It is a simple misunderstanding.

> In the first viewing mode, the large circle is the World, with the centre of
> the World at the centre. In the second viewing mode, the small circles
> represent individual positions of the World, with the large circle being the
> World's alleged orbit and the centre of the diagram being the centre of the
> Sun. (The slight eccentricity of the orbit is not relevant to this
> discussion.)
>
Okay.

> Note that the camera can be rotating about the celestial axis daily, but
> still align its optical axis with the ecliptic polar axis at tropical day
> increments.
>
Exactly as I wrote above :-)

> The only difference we should expect to see between the two sets
> of star trails is that the annual ones would be only roughly circular.
>
But, this, I'm afraid, is where you err. As I also wrote above:
"At any other times, however, you'll see other parts of the great
circle at 23.4' from the pole."
There will be no star trails around the ecliptic pole.

Regards,

Regner

> Neville
> www.GeocentricUniverse.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: art@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:20:47 +1100
>
> Quoting Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Regner,
> >
> > Thank you. And I accept your inference that the orbit, at this inclination,
> > ought strictly to be elliptical.
> >
> Okay, so the axis perpendicular to the screen is the daily rotation axis
> of the Earth, and the orbit of the Earth around the Sun should be
> foreshortened
> by the 23.4' angle between that axis and the ecliptic axis.
>
> > However, there is a second interpretation of the figure. That this does not
> > depict one camera, but 16 cameras scattered around the World, all with
> their
> > optical axes parallel with the celestial polar axis.
> >
> Okay - so all the cameras are pointed at the viewer of your figure?
> And each of the 16 instances of Earth, has 16 cameras mounted, equidistantly
> on the equator?
>   That is not a different view of the same thing - that's a different
> scenario.
>
> > In this case, the time
> > intervals, for rotation about the celestial polar axis (in the plane of the
> > paper/screen), can be sidereal or solar. Agreed?
> >
> The time intervals between the 16 instances of Earth that you depicted in
> your
> two figures?  They are obviously unaffected by where you put a camera...?...
> I don't think I quite get your question.
>
>    Regards,
>
>       Regner
>
>
>
>
> Get Free 5GB Email â?? Check out spam free email with many cool features!
>
> Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
>
>
>

```