Didn't we determine that 23'56" was the proper time to record the annual star trail and that at 24hours we would not record a star trail? Maybe I've got it backwards. But... If you hold that globe in your hand and pretend to make it revolve around the sun (ignore the nightly rotation) you must still rotate the globe slightly so that you get one revolution per orbit in order to simulate the position of the globe at the nightly picture taking moment for recording portions of the annual. This spot is at a different angle each night. Consider yourself standing on top of Washington monument at night and then 6 months later at night, you are at opposite sides of the nightly axis and therefore at a different angle to the annual axis. Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: JA..take a look at a globe and read my comments.. j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dr. Jones & Allen, What Paul is saying is the same thing I've been trying to get across. When attempting to record an annual trail; as the camera moves to the next photo op it also gets tilted by the rotation on the nightly axis. Not if the exposure is taken every 24 hours...the camera is in the exact same "tilt" it was the night before.....................Tilting the camera for the next photo alters where any particular star will fall on the photo plate. Surley you must see how altering the camera angle while collecting for a single trail (whether nightly or annual) would alter the trail? There would be if the HC motions existed but not if there is only the gc motion. However, in any case it is a moot issue because there is no tilt every 24 hours it is in the exact same "tilted" postion....... take your globe and spin it to 24 hours latter ( it is in the exact same positon).. We all agree that the stars distance from the axis of rotation is what makes the size of the trail. We all agree that any camera angle is fine for recording the nightly circles - just as long as the angle stays the same for the entire recording. Said another way, the orientation of the camera to the ground must remain fixed for recording a nightly trail. Said another way, the angle of the camera to the axis of rotation must remain the same. It seems we should hold to the same criteria for the Annual trail, but we don't, because; when the camera moves to the next spot to record the annual trail, the angle to the axis of annual rotation has changed because the camera is rotating with the nightly axis, therefore we are no longer positioned to record the annual trail. It is my contention that if we adjusted the angle we would indeed record annual star trails. My other contention is that we could make up any axis and record star trails around it with this method. My final contention is that the lack of an annual trail is not a proof for or against either HC or GC. I've heard on this forum many times that the dynamics are equal (between HC & GC), one could be substituted for the other, so why would you be able to record different things from each scenario? Last, I repeat my logical challenge (altered a little) because I think it still stands. If the baseline is 0 and either the camera or the star rotates and the camera is fixed to the earth, the nightly star circles will never change position. Since the star circles never change position, a different set of circles will never be formed from any type of composite. Therefore it is impossible to record an annual cirlce that is different from the nightly, using the method of nightly recording. JA Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Neville J In control. Your description is fine for the camera which records the 'nightly' trails but not for the camera which records the 'annual' trails -- this is the one which is fixed directly to the ecliptic disk. I know that resorting to analogy is a risky process. Its success depends considerably upon the intended audience's receptivity, yet it has its uses where goodwill exists. If I, as the editor of a weekly news magazine, were to offer you a commission to provide me with two definitive photographs of traffic, one from the point of a pedestrian, and one from the point of view of a motorist, but instead you provided me with one view of traffic from the point of view of a pededstrian and one view of traffic from the point of view of another pedestrian -- you wouldn't get paid. I can understand why you won't address this issue but I'm sure you understand me. You can have the last crack. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2007 6:38:50 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth...... Paul, Temper, temper. If the camera is fixed to a mount, and the mount is fixed to the ground, and the ground is fixed to the World, and the World is fixed to the ecliptic, and the ecliptic rotates about the Sun (which is equivalent to the World going around a path in the plane of the ecliptic), then is the camera not fixed to the ecliptic disc? Neville www.GeocentricUniverse.com -----Original Message----- From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:15:22 +0000 (GMT) Neville J No sir! I said FIX it to the ecliptic disk or SIMULATE fixing it to the ecliptic disk; I did not say SUBSTITUTE something (like the Earth) for it. You can't evade this issue for ever you know! Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2007 6:01:03 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth...... Paul, Regarding your point number 6, the thing that fixes the camera to the disc of the ecliptic [plane] is the same thing that fixed the camera in point 5 - i.e., the World (or earth), since the World must stay in this plane, just as it must continue to rotate about its geographical polar axis in the heliocentric model under discussion. I may have given you two pictures of the wedding party, but their relation to the position of the bell tower will be clearly seen in one of them. Neville www.GeocentricUniverse.com -----Original Message----- From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:46:16 +0000 (GMT) Neville J 1. Assume R = 1AU = 2AU. 2. Place your camera in a fixed position anywhere in a sphere of radius 1AU centered on the Sun. 3. Point it at the NCP. Chock the shutter open. Rotate the camera 360 deg in almost any period of time. Close the shutter. Result -- star trails centred on the NCP -- sometimes referred to as 'nightly' star trails. 4. Point your camera at the NEP. Chock the shutter open. Rotate the camera 360 degrees in almost any period of time. Close the shutter. Result -- star trails centred on the NEP -- sometimes referred to as 'annual' star trails. 5. In #3, the rotation can be obtained by fixing the camera directly to the Earth. 6. In #4, the rotation can be obtained by fixing the camera to the disk of the ecliptic (or by simulating it). I wanted one picture of the wedding party and one of the bell tower. You've given me two of the wedding party. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx That's the whole point, Jack. There is no difference. Yet one simulation is achieved with a snapshot every 4 minutes and the other is achieved with a snapshot every 24 hours. There is only one rotation axis, not two. Neville www.GeocentricUniverse.com -----Original Message----- From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:58:16 -0000 Dear Neville, I can't see any difference in the two videos. What does this mean? Are you not able to simulate that which you want to try and do with a camera? Jack --------------------------------- Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. --------------------------------- Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.