# [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:43:00 -0800 (PST)

```I think I understand what you are getting at now..?...........That is why I
suggested using the ecliptic axis as the focal point, for simplicity sake (but
not necessity). As long as the camera is oriented to the parallel of the
ecliptic axis (annual) any change in latitude will not have any effect. To go
one step further, as long as you take your exposures parallel to the annual
axis (23.44o from the celestial axis) and If the exposure is taken at midnight
every 24 hours you don?t even have to "fix" the camera. The same radial
condition will exist every night at midnight and the camera would have the same
orientation (parallel to annual axis, or  23.44o from the celestial axis.)
Then any difference in latitude would be inconsequential. Because parallel
views of the ecliptic axis (annual) anywhere on the earths orbit are equivalent
since the baseline distance would have no significant affect.

Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA,

I understand what you are saying, which is that there is no parallel of
latitude in the annual case, as there is in the daily case, because of the
World's motion about the geographical polar axis.

However, in the annual case, our camera is effectively positioned on an
approximate parallel of latitude on the much larger globe (whose radius is 1AU
+ R on Camera movement 2 negative.gif). You need to consider two globes, not
one.

We do not need to point the camera directly at the appropriate celestial pole
in order to see evidence of rotation about that pole. This is well known (see
Fig. 1 of the Celestial Poles page, for instance). This is also the reason that
I have in the past stated that the trails in the annual case will not produce
perfect circles, as they do in the daily case, but should produce a sort of
wavy circle due to the successive orientation of the fixed camera, around the
approximate parallel of latitude.

I think the source of our difference is that you are viewing both daily and
annual rotation with respect to the same table-top globe tilted on an axis,
whereas the annual effect should be visualized by imagining a much larger
(though still insignificant as regards such a monstrously large universe)
globe. The slight deviation from a perfect parallel of latitude in the second
case is then seen to be of little importance compared to the camera's
undeniable motion around the ecliptic polar axis (if such motion existed).

In short, if you only consider the one-size globe, then you would be perfectly
correct, because all you are doing is pointing the camera in different
directions and leaving it there. In this case, you are only ever considering
the plane of the celestial equator, and so there are only ever going to be star
trails about the poles of that plane.

Neville

www.GeocentricUniverse.com

-----Original Message-----
From: ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:45:30 -0800 (PST)

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. 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?

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

---------------------------------
Free Online Photosharing - Share your photos online with your friends and
family!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!

```