Allen D I never know whether I've correctly deciphered your posts or not so I'll try a simplified explanation of what I think you are complaining about. Fix a rod to the Earth parallel with its axis of rotation. Put a 22.5 deg bend in the free end such that it aligns with the ecliptic axis. At midnight each night plot the free end of the rod in three dimensions In six months you will have defined half a cone of included angle 47 deg and the free end will not be aligned with the ecliptic axis. (Ignore the 2AU disk -- on the scale we are considering, it is a sharp point). Indeed, from the first night it will not have been so aligned. And the errors are additive until the maximum of 47 deg at which time they will begin subtracting till they reach zero when we arrive back at the starting point at which time we will have finished describing that cone. However, had we rotated that part of the rod which is parallel with Earth's axis at the same rate at which the Earth rotates but in the opposite direction, then it would have remained constantly aligned with the ecliptic axis. Does that help you? Some of my difficulties with this post inserted below in <colour>.<> Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, 16 November, 2007 3:47:51 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth...... Paul, You and Regner are definitely two of a kind. Your explanations are self contradictory..........Your diagram either shows the camera pointing in the same angle (90o to the ecliptic) <ie at the ecliptic pole> or it is not (parallel to the ecliptic) six months latter.. You show that six months latter it is not looking at the ecliptic. <Good! That part is clear then. That is if you mean ecliptic pole?.> You say in six months it will be looking 47 degrees in a different direction. Will a camera that was pointing 90o to the ecliptic then as you say rotates to 47o in a different direction from that 90o still be looking at the same latitude on the celestial sphere?..<I really hadn't thought about that but I guess (quick mental visualisation) that is so.>..Paul, Paul, your whole explanation here to attempt to explain why <we?> would <or> could not be looking at the ecliptic <pole?> 6 months latter <incomplete> <New?>the only way to do that is tho show a rotation not on the same latitude/great circle but to a different latitude, and yet in the same argument you insist that we would not see any difference!? ..Which is it? <I have no idea what this means.> If it does not change the latitude then how does it prevent you form seeing the ecliptic if you are still looking at the same latitude on the ecliptic? <Or this.> Will 47 degrees looking in another latitude change our view of the night sky?...<If I understand this, then of course, but then I may not understand.>....The ecliptic axis is only 23.44 degrees from the celestial axis. If I look at the ecliptic <pole?> do I see the same stars as I do on the celestial<pole?>? <If you look at one part of the sky then at another, then you will see different stars.> Is that the same latitude? <Again, if I understand this, then for a given reference (usually the celestial pole reference system) then clearly not.> If I double that angular distance from the ecliptic will I see the same stars or even the same latitude that the same stars are in? <...no idea...> In six moths will we see the same latitude of the "great circle" in the sky or not?..<Latitude and longitude are not visible. Great circles do not have a latitude and longitude reference so far as I know.>...LOL.....Find a position and stick too it quite jumping back and forth. <I think you just don't understand what I'm saying. There hasn't been any other confusion.> I don’t mean a different star due to the constellations moving ( they stay in the same latitude of the celestial sphere all year long, every year) I want to know if 47 degrees will have us looking in a different stars on a different latitude? <Still thinking on this, I think we are still on the same latitude but the londitude will have changed 180 deg. Do you think the stars will be different? LOL > If we are not looking at the same latitude then you prove your on position untenable. Your arguments are mutually exclusive and self contradictory....You need to look at some geometry and get a clue.....That goes for you too Regner, you should know better.... LOL.. < I think it is you who needs to rethink.> Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen D I don't know how you received the picture but on Yahoo it was not really readable. If it was like this for you also, you will have to download it then you will be able to read it. You see -- again you appear to have decided what I said without reading it because if you had (and understood) then you would not have said what you have said here. Hint -- see particularly the text in the bottom right hand corner. Regarding being a closet geocentrist -- you knew wrong. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, 15 November, 2007 3:22:55 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth...... 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. 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. http://au.yahoo.com/worldsbestmail/viagra/index.html