JA, Just a little further...... You don?t have to be looking at any axis to see the rotation on that axis. Thus as long as a observer take a photo of the stars from a radial ordination to the axis in question..even if the observers angle changes as in Paul?s diagram it will not affect the radial condition and thus the rotation only the shape of the circles and that is what Nevile was getting at in his post about wavy circles... Again you do not have to have the camera in the same angle in order to record the radial orientation to an axis which is rotation. You can change your angle to the nightly axis of rotation all year around and get the same n-s right Ascension relationships you do every night even at different angles.. Ja you are confusing the radial rotation with the angle at which you observe that rotation....even in Paul?s diagram it would be the same rotation only looking at it from a different angle.. either case disproves HC.. PS it was more then just "a point" i made....Check Mate! Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Ja, There a differnce in what we would see if the motion existed verse if it did not exist...... j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, But he did show that adjusting the camera's angle to the annual pole was needed to actually record the annual trail. I have been making some attempts at drawing the same thing but haven't liked what I've done so far. Now I don't have to, thanks Paul. Now you may have a point about where the camera is pointing after 6 months in Pauls drawing, but you have not acknowledged that due to this motion the annual ring you have been depicting cannot be recorded. It could be recorded if it existed! Ja, If you place your camera at 23.44o offset from polaris at midnight that by definition is parallel to the ecliptic axis according to HC ..We would only be looking for that axis ..If you set this up every night with the same camera. ( non fixed camera).... If the motions as per HC existed the camera would have oreinted radialy by dfintion around that axis...and the stars would move out of their latitiudes for different reasons then the ones you give.....However, in any case a fixed camera or not is irrelevant! .either case disproves HC!..In a fixed camera yes for the reasons i just gave Paul that would disprove HC...... but if you use a non fixed camera and adjust your camera to the same postion every night 23.44o from polaris you will still not get star trails becasue that motion on that axis does not exist! You say but ah that is becasue you are using polaris as the guide post but..... I will say ah but that guide post (polaris) never moves angularly against the sky or ground and neither will the angle of your camera to the ground :-) Polaris does not moves radially around that axis and since polaris is so far away from the ecliptic axis of "rotation" if it existed then it would be a star trail by polaris that is the size of what the cephus stars are now. I f it were the difference in angle that the camera was facing over the course of a year that would be most noticable you would have to change the angle of the camera from either or both polaris or the ground but you do not! Thus there can be no additional motion becasuse the camera (angle to ground) and angle of camera to stars forms a strait line of sight the slightest deviation from that line of sight would show up.............. ....You see i said the camera does not have to be fixed ( I said that for simplicity) and it does not. I only used it for simplicity sake becuse of other issues.....My point alalong has been that no matter which road you take in your example a fixed camera or a camera that is adjusted everynight to offset 23.44 dgrees from polaris will lead you to the exact same conclustion...THE MOTION DOES NOT EXIST! You have said to me that 24 hours later the camera is back at the same lattitude because 24 hours equals one rotation. 24 hours by definion places the observer in the same radial oreintaion it was the night before relitive to the sun. HC does not even argue this...I even use Paul's own diagram to show it!........ It is the sun not the stars that the ecliptic axis proceeds from. It is that axis not the NCP that is in question. This fact the radial geometry and postion of an observer every 24 hours is true even if HC's descriptions were true.... Like Philip you are confusing the termonlogy/descriptions with the Geomety. .I as a GC would not use the same termonology/ descritption for the cause of sidreal days. However, that issue is moot, because reagaurless of why or how much the earth rotates on it's axis in 23h 56 min the geometry of 24 hours in relation to the axis we are looking for is not in question by GC or HC. In short sidreal days are irrelevant we know where the axis is and we know exactly when we are in a radial oreintaion to that axis therefore there is no way to argue that we cannot record photographicaly a "rotational conditon" over the course of a year, reagardless of any and all other supposed motions. It does not, it equals 1 rotation plus a fraction of a rotation, therefore the lattitude has changed each night. If it did not then 12 midnight would happen in the middle of the day 6 months later. JA Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Congratulations Paul !. Your diagram shows and just proved that if the earth did in fact go around the sun according to HC then the fixed camera focused ~parallel to the ecliptic (north or south) axis, over the course of six moths will be pointing in a entirely different direction and thus looking a different stars in a different ecliptic latitude of the celestial sphere in the sky ( not just different stars on the same ecliptic latitude) A wopping 24 degrees in a different direction altogether with entirly different stars ....NOW GO DO THAT AN SEE IF THAT EVER HAPPENS IN REALITY........hint....IT DOES NOT!!! .........Paul, I knew you were a closet geocentrist all the time.....:-) Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Greetings interested parties! Comments in this colour From j a Wed Nov 14 20:45:30 2007 What Paul is saying is the same thing I've been trying to get across. An ally! 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? From j a Wed Nov 14 21:49:52 2007 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? NO 24 hours exposures.. Sorry -- this time Allen got it right! From Allen Daves Wed Nov 14 23:43:00 2007 I think I understand what you are getting at now..?...........Allen! Can I truly stop trying now? Well I've got a picture for you all anyway. Please tell me if you don't understand this. Paul D --------------------------------- Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.