I forgot the diagram in question....mine shows the same thing as yours but your missing the key elements.... Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Ja, I found it...yes postion one and two are correct!...but again you are making a assumption based on a false primise. In-fact i covered this whole thing extensively in the last drawing i put forward......your assumtion that the nightly is in the annual means you would not see it is as valid as a seeing both rotations in a orbital sander....... what don't you understand? Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I only see Jacks drawing..but like i said were you are wrong is that just becuse you see the nightly in that annual does not mean the other would not be there...just as in athe case of a radial sander....You are making that assumption...that is the bases for your whole argument thus far...?. j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I am not making any assumptions in the drawing I just did. Either it represents the camera positions in HC or it does not. If it does, then I rest my case, if it does not, than I don't understand why not. Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: NO..You are assuming that since the nightly would show up in the annual then therefore you would see nothing else..This is not only wrong but falsifiable as well!...... I covered this in my last email...but the reason you see the nightly paths in the annual is not because the two are equivalent...that is the argument they make...the reason the nightly show up in the annual is because the 24 hour exposures parallax the nightly axis over the course of a year just as the observer does nightly...but it also parallaxes another axis you cannot just pretend it is not there simply because the nightly one is there..... What you are suggesting would be equivalent to looking a a radial sander and only seeing one axis of its rotation...you can't do it both axis are apparent and obvious even thought nightly you will only see one over the course of a year both must be present or non existent. You see simply arguing that the nightly rotation exist in the annual does not solve your problem. Again take a radial sander you can spin it on one axis...turn th power on, that same axis of spin is there ...BUT ALSO THE SECONDARY AXIS IS AS WELL, EVEN THOUGH THE PRIMARY IS THERE TOO! This is where you are getting confused...simply seeing the nightly in the annual does not solve the problem. This is provable and demonstratable even using the real stars for real distance.......This is the assumption that many a Geocentrist have bought into with fairly good reason...until about a 100 years ago no one would have been able to even verify this ..but we can... j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: OK, we both agree that the 24 hour path is radial to the annual axis (such that it is pointing as directly as is possible away from the sun) and that the initial angle of the camera is irrellevent. I''m saying that the camera is changing angle with respect to the axis we are trying to record. See my attached diagram. You will no doubt agree that the 3 cameras, from position 1 to position 2, each represent a camera fixed with reguard to the surface of the earth and are 12 hours apart and each will record opposite ends of the nightly star circles because they have each rotated around the nightly axis. But can we also call this a picture of the 3 cameras at midnight 6 months apart? If yes, then they will have recorded the same two points of each nightly star circle because all of the dynamics are obviously identical. If this is true than the annual star trails will be identical to the nightly star trails, because the camera is rotating around the same axis. JA Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Ja, There is no such thing as a 23.56 hour path and a 24 hour path! ..........The only differnce between the two is the number of degress it took to get there but that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that in fact even according to HC 24 hours pust the camera in a radial postion to the axis in question..The angle of the camera is not relevant either...it is assumed but it is also falsifiable a simple experiment will show that is false...IF it is false then there is no 23.56 hour path as opposed to the 24 hour path.. ..The reason being that you do not have to look at the same angle or the axis in question to observe the rotation..The fact that the nightly will also manifest itself annualy is not in question either. However, neither can it mask a annual rotaion about the other axis ...That is why we say it would cause a big blur over the course of a year............ Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Ja, You seem to think how many degrees the earth rotates in 24 hours is relevant? ..It makes Absolutly no difference! It does not matter if it rotates 360 or 2000 dgreess...NO difference! ..The only thing that is importaint is that on 24 hours in HC & GC, regardless of how many dgrees of rotaion in 24 hours or 23 hours both models aggree that in 24 hours from midnight to midnight is a radial condtion to the axis of rotation in question...we are not limited to what time we can take an exposure...You are hung up on how many degrees it rotates in in 24 hours v 23.56, but that is irrelevant because we are not looking for a number of degress we are only concered with a radial conditon around a axis so as to view the rotation around that axis. HC does not deny that radial conditon exist ..how many degrees of the earth's suposed spin it took to dt there is irrelecant we are not measuring days. You are confusing the angular displacment for a day with what we are looking for.....Im not sweeping it under the rug.......You are appling a irrelevant premise of a nuber of degrees of spin in 24 or 23.56 hours to this whole issue and it does not affect anything except how you define days it does not define the radial condition that exist every 24 hours reguardless of how many degrees of rotation it took to get there...even HC would not make the argument you are...it is meaningless over the course of a year we are going to take measurments from 131,00 degrees of rotation total...your objection is irrelevant for what is under discussion.........? Somehow you think we are restricted to what time we can take a exposure by defintinon that HC agrees with on 24 hours our exposure will be radial to the axis in question..HC does not deny this..so why do you and if you do not, then you have no point?......I know exactly what you are saying, you just dont see it is irrelevant. Please keep trying to expain this to me so i can figure out where you are getting so confused.....im being serious...im racking my brain out here to figure out what has got you so mixed up on the angles and degrees of rotation in any time period? that is not in question nor does it determine anything...... j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, I think you you and I are in absolute agreement on every single detail of the "dual axis proof" except one, which of course, makes the difference, and is what I've been trying to get accross to you, which you have answered by basically telling me to look at a globe and/or sweeping it away without any detail other than to repeat things that I already agree with you on. Please consider this carefully and prayerfully and with patience. I would prefer to be wrong, but am afraid I am not. I have spent allot of time looking at a globe, drawing globes, determining what a camera would record with different motions and axis's and lengths of axis's, etc.... As have you. That detail in question being: how much does the earth rotate in 24 hours? You have said: 1 full 360 degree rotation, which would allow a camera (regardless of orientation) to record star trails around the yearly axis, since the camera would rotate about the yearly axis.... I say: 1 full rotation plus a hair more (something like ~360.9863 degrees), which would allow a camera to record only a repeat of the nightly cirlce, since that is the axis the camera has rotated along. If the earth returns to it's exact location and position and orientation every 365 days while traveling 360 degrees around the sun, then it moves 0.9863 degrees around the sun per day. So a complete day, midnight to midnight is 360.9863 degrees. To check this, lets look at the position in 182 days. Midnight on day 182 would be facing practically 180 degrees away from midnight on day 1. Your formula would have 182 days times 360 degrees per day = a whole integer with no remainder.... therefore your midnight would be facing the exact same direction as 182 days earlier, except that we are now on the opposite side of the the sun....so you have midnight facing the sun..... midnight does not happen in the daytime. My formula would be 182 days times 360.9863 degrees per day = a whole integer with a remainder of ~180 degrees... therefore my midnight would be facing directly away from the sun, allowing midnight to happen when it's dark. The only way to record a yearly star trail about the annual axis is to have the camera rotate about the annual axis.... and there is no way to do this.... The only path that moves perpendicular to the annual axis is the 23.56 path, but the camera will not rotate. The 24hour path rotates, but only around the nightly axis. If this still doesn't convice you, then please.....please, don't repeat the things we agree on, which is everything, except what the camera revolves around on the 24hour path. JA.... Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Jack, I think your drawing has captured it all, exactly. The green circles could also be described as the camera location at 4 different points of the year (following the 24hour path), while trying to record a yearly circle, and if you look at it that way, you'll see why no annual circle can be recorded....you've moved around the same axis as the nightly.... therfeore you'll have only recorded the nightly. The red lines show where you would like for your camera to be, in order to record an annual circle (because the path is perpendicular to the axis), except that those points only exist along a 23hour 56minute path, and as shown in a drawing that Allen did, there is no rotation of the camera on those paths, so no annual circle can be recorded there either. This is why I have dropped out from those supporting this proof. Since the mechanics involved make it impossible to record anything other than a nightly trail, the lack of a yearly trail in recordings is not proof of anything. JA... Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear All, This is my attempt to explain more graphically Neville's last drawing showing the two axes of rotation. 1 The green circles are a fixed spot on the world shown in four different positions traversing the ecliptic path. The NEP is perpendicular to the grey ecliptic plane. This illustrates the world's 24 hour rotation. I have tried to take great care to get the geometry correct within the limitations of my drawing software. 2 The green circles also represent the world traversing its annual orbit about the NCP. These are shown as red ellipses. The NEP, according to my drawing geometry, also traverses the NCP. Since there are two rotations happening simultaneously but at very different velocities the illustration can only show an NCP rotation (red ellipses) extrapolated for a whole year. I value comments by all as to whether I have understood the problem or not. I do have a series of 12 illustrations, similar to the one below, showing the position of the ecliptic plane every 30 degrees about the NCP. Jack Lewis www.classiccarartist.co.uk --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.