-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:37:01 +1000Well Neville, I certainly was not so imprudent or arrogant as to dismiss the point out of hand for the list. I merely thought from my point of view at that time, that I had fully grasped what was going on, and saw no more reason to go further with it.I hadn't given up grappling with it.. I am still having trouble visualising what is happening heliocentrically, and it is in this mode, that I must have a picture, or I cannot participate or even understand Regners refutations. So I will perservere with a question or two.This is how I get the picture from Wiki. I will set my questions within this text, [...thus]Ecliptic and equatorAs the rotation axis of the Earth is not perpendicular to its orbital plane, the equatorial plane is not parallel to the ecliptic plane, but makes an angle of about 23°26' which is known as the obliquity of the ecliptic. The intersections of the equatorial and ecliptic plane with the celestial dome are great circles known as the celestial equator and the ecliptic.
The intersection line "A great circle is the intersection of a sphere with a plane going through its center. of the two planes results in two diametrically opposite intersection points, known as the equinoxes. The equinox which the Sun passes from south to north is known as the vernal equinox or first point of Aries. Ecliptic longitude, usually indicated with the letter λ, is measured from this point on 0° to 360° towards the east. Ecliptic latitude, usually indicated with the letter β is measured +90° to the north or -90° to the south.
The same intersection point also defines the origin of the equatorial coordinate system, named right ascension measured from 0 to 24 hours also to the east and usually indicated with α or R.A., and declination, usually indicated with δ also measured +90° to the north or -90° to the south. Simple rotation formulas allow a conversion from α,δ to λ,β and back (see: ecliptic coordinate system).
[With difficulty, but so far so good.. At least I now can navigate. My question is with the next bit. ]
[edit] Ecliptic and stars
The ecliptic serves as the center of a region called the zodiac which constitutes a band of 9° on either side. Traditionally, this region is divided into 12 signs of 30° longitude each. By tradition, these signs are named after 12 of the 13 constellations straddling the ecliptic. The zodiac signs are very important to many astrologers. Modern astronomers typically use other coordinate systems today (see below).
[ from this I conclude, (which I always thought) that if I was on earth and looked out at midnight, on a plane parallel with the ecliptic, once a month which is 30 degrees of the earths orbit of the sun I would see one twelfth of the 360 degrees of the cosmos around the sun. these sections are named after signs of the zodiac. Therefore in the course of a year I will have viewed the entire 360 degrees of space. If I took a timelapse movie over this 12 months, I would have a moving picture of the anual rotation of the stars around the earth and of course the sun.
Yet might I not say this annual rotation is caused by the relative movement of the constellations, and the suns different period, rather than the earth movement.. Same illusion, of relative motions, but an annual instead of daily.
But all of this only more deeply mystifies me as to why Neville and all claim there is no evidence of this annual rotation at the poles If it is visible in the zodiac region, it has to be happening in the polar regions, except a bit more difficult to record .
If you can clear me up on this one Neville, I will continue.. sorry but your "celestial poles" page does not clear this up for me. Maybe I need an "ecliptic poles" page.
Philip.
