Red Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Me in blue.. j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, you are above me and swing from a rope around in a circle. I stand in the center of the circle looking up with my camera, take a time lapse and the photo reveals your circular trail. If I tilt my head to one side or the other a little or a lot and take another time lapse it will not affect the size of your recorded circle, but the circle will be in a different place on the film. Yes but differnt palce on the film is not the same as differnt trails it is the same trail only direcion you are looing at it form this issue is moot....I'm seting up the premise that changing the angle of recording changes where things appear on the film If I combine the photos, in the annual experiment you do not need to combine any photos or change the angle of the camera. My point it that the rotation around the nightly axis is causing your camera angle to change, therefore your film will not have the star in the proper spot. I'll get multiple cirlces, they will be the same size but they will not be in the same place. if I bob my head so that a complete bob (down a little then back up) coincides with one single revolution for you, the film will record something other than the trail of the first recording, the circle will either be larger or smaller and possibly nonexistant. If the angle of the camera changes with respect to the axis of rotation during the recording, it will not record what you are saying it will. If I just jerk to one side while recording you, won't the jerk move where you are on the film? you don't move the camera during the actual exposures ..it never changes angles or anything else so all these issues are irrelevant to us....They are not irrelevant because the angle of the camera is changed for you by the rotation about the other axis....However for HC, If the motions existed for real then yes the camera would move in real rotation around the solar axis and that woud blur the photo over the course of a year...BUT IT DOES NOT AND THAT IS ALREADY PROVEN......doesn't movement of the camera mess up what you are recording? yes but we are not moving the camera. in fact it is importaint the you do not move the camera or change its oreintaion over the course of a year so as to see if in fact the camera moves relitive to you on the rope (stars) No, you must adjust the camera over the year to compensate for the change caused by the other axis. Get a styrofoam ball, cram three pencils in it. one is your camera, one is the polar axis, one is the ecliptic. I don't care where you put the camera. hold it up. that will be picture one. now don't move anything, but rotate the ball 180 degrees on the polar axis, This position is picture 2. Pictures 1 and 2 represent our 24 hour separated pictures 6 months apart. Flip back and forth between the two. Picture where any single star would be on the film for the two recording points. One star should occupy two spots on your film if your contentions are true. This should work for a star in any position, but the distance between should change with the stars position. If the two positions of the star are in the same place (or very nearly) than my contentions are true. This should work for a star in any positon. This experiment is easier to do on paper. draw a globe down in the bottom right corner, place the ecliptic axis straight up and down. from the left of that axis put the annual axis going to the right and down. place a star in the upper left corner. Put a camera on the surface of the globe, pointing in any direction that will put the star in view. Now using the polar axis, determine where the camera would be in six months and what angle it would face. Where is the star on the film for the two positions. Remember the film is upside down for one. JA Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: JA, More comments in blue......... j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: OK, my responces are in red and they run far far down - I hope I went as far down as needed and answered the questions you wanted. If I could sum up what I am trying to get accross to you: The star trail circle produced by a star about any axis and our ability to record it depends on several things. 1) The distance of the star to the axis of rotation. (determines the size of the circle) YES 2) The distance from the camera to the star being multi-magnitudes further than the baseline of the camera from the axis of rotation. Far enough to consider the baseline zero. YES, WE ASSUME THAT IS TRUE..... 3) The camera must maintain the angle from itself to the axis of rotation in question during any recording. (If the angle changes during the recording, it will alter the path recorded) NO!..NO! NO!. absolutly not!.....the angle our camera is set to can not affect wether or not we see the same path, the distances are too great. Changing the angle of the camera will only alter the angle at which you view the path from, or what part of the path you are looking at...will i be looking at the stars close to the rotational axis with small circular paths...or ..will I be looking at stars that are far from the rotational axis that have larger circle paths.....That is the only change but no change in size or shapes of paths........The distances are assumed so great the size/shape of the path will not change.... It will not alter the path...you are confusing those two things ( the path and the angle from which we view it from........They are not one and the same!!!.... Eg The nightly star trails have been taken at all angles of the earths surface from all diferent camera angles that size nor the shape nor the path nor the direction of the star trails ever chagnes ..nor should, nor would, nor could it ever ..if you take a camera and look at polaris nightly it will show a small circle then ingreasingly larger conentric circles on the photo..now if you take your camera and face it say 23.44 degress at other stars those same stars will have the same path and size as they did in the photo taken head on looking at polaris....DUE TO THE DISTANCES, THE ANGLE YOU AT AT IT FROM ONLY CHANGES THE VIEW ( WHAT PART OF THE ROTAION YOU ARE LOOKING AT CURRENTLY) IT DOES NOT, WILL NOT, CANNOT, CHANGE THE ROTATION PATH OR THE SIZE OF THE/ ANY PATH(S)...It is no differnecs then taking a photo graph of the helicopter blades or lets say the monkey bars (You are on the ground looking up at them head on as they rotate around you).....Now if you take your camera and look say 23.44 degrees offset from the axis of rotation. You will still get the same exact photio of the path of rotaion as you did in the photo where you were looking at it head on the only diference will be the wether or not the trails move perpendicular or concentricly across the photo but there is no change..nor could there be. If it would change the nightly paths or sizes then the baseline differnce would have to have an effect but it does not.....IF you are confused i suggest you do the experiment & or wait to see if Steven can get his sim to work..... It is #3 that you are not addressing and/or missing. Think about your tripod camera 6 months apart. They have rotated about the 23.44 axis and the camera is on the opposite side of the planet, therefore the angle of the camera has changed with reguard to the yearly axis, Yes, it changes the oreintaion of the camera... in rotation ...it is rotation that produces the nightly trails thus it must produce annual ones. Otherwise, that cahnge to the yearly axis (rotation) does not exist.......... therefore the two pictures taken cannot be used to create an annual circle. Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Ja, Ok this is going to be slow but nessisary.......You have a lot of misconceptions about alot of things here..i don't think this is going to be quick nor will it answer all your questions ..i think you are going to have to start back at square one with the demonstration of rotation and seeing and understanding fully what and how of the two non equivalent rotations and their axis are....you are completely confused on this issue ...I need more information from you to go any further with this..but at this point you do not understand / see the two non equivalent axis of rotation demanded by MS that fact is not even in dispute by MS...... I inserted some comments i need see your response before i can move on with the proof or anything else for that matter.... Allen, I think what you are missing from my general arguement, is that yes, there are two separate axis of rotation, that, if treated equally, would each produce a different star trail for any particular star. But they are not treated equally with the pictures that have been taken,..why/ how are they not equal in terms of a rotaion and axis?..thats all the matters even HC cannot deny that ..I dont even understand your reasoning in why or how you think that statment is valid?....MS does not think they are eqivilent. so why/ how do you?...I agree, they are equal in terms of rotaion and axis, but, The recording of such by a stationary camera is not equal in both cases..... because in the nightly trail case, the camera's angle to the nightly axis remains the same....but in the recording of the yearly trail , the camera's angle to the annual axis is changing with each snapshot we take, regardless of whether it is 24 hour spacing or 23 hour 56 minute spacing. If I went out on a single night and took a single picture every minute for several hours and overlayed them together, I would get a portion of the nightly star trail (a partial circle of dots). But if I adjusted the angle of my camera between shots by the exact same amount each time and then ovelayed the shots together, I would not get the nightly circle..... I would get either a larger or a smaller circle depending on the "adjustment" I had made between shots. If my angular adjustment were just right, I could make each photo have the star in question in the exact same spot, but I cannot call that proof of the polar axis not existing, just like I cannot call the lack of a star trail over an anual period a proof of the annual axis not existing, because the angle of the camera changes with each shot. therefore we cannot say they have failed to record the annual star trail. First we must determine what it would look like under the unequal circumstances they were recorded under. I do not think you addressed my Logic challange in paragraph 2 below. Please look at it one more time, because if anybody can cut through some faulty logic, it's you. The first section you responded to is a statement of my logical premise and I completely agree with what you said in responce, it just doesn't have anything to do with the premise. your premise is entirly wrong ..i will readdress all these below... The second section you responded to, I spell out the problem, but you do not actually address it, you state your view of why the helicopter scenario supports your view, which I may or may not agree with. In the third section, I present the two mutually exclusive ideas, one of which must be wrong, but your responce is a re-iteration of your proof. In this logic challenge I am not challenging your proof's details, I am taking the 2 direct conclusions of your proof (an annual circle must be created) (the nightly circle is created nightly and never moves reguardless of the baseline of the earth or the earths orbit) and the only conclusion you can draw from these two "facts"...... the motion about two axis is impossible(because the yearly must be traced out by the nightly, yet it cannot even be done theoretically)... and asking if this motion is observed in any of the other planets. If it is, then I have shown your proof to be flawed without talking about the details or reasoning behind your proof.. Now my drawings are a different matter, there I am challenging the mechanics behind the Proof. You dont have a proper grasp of HC's mechanics, as per HC, first of all........... If I have made an error them, please point it out to me. ..ok pay close attention... I appreciate your efforts, and I do wish to be back on board, however, the more I look at it the further I am getting from accepting the Star trails proof. It seems to me that the proof, if correct, would not only demolish HC, but would also demolish the possibility of that type of motion, IE... No planet could rotate on an axis that is different from it's orbital axis. They most certainly can and they DO all the time!!!!!That is my point, I'm saying the proof procludes the possibility..Again look at the diagrams it demonstrates how every single planet does that very thing. Further MS absolutly demands this!!!.I agree, but this is my point..You need to go back to and pay close attention to the diagram of the model there is two axis or roation they are not equevilent nor do lay on the same angle to each other, nor are they dependent upon each other.........If the nightly circle does not move through the sky during the year, Right! how can it trace out a larger circle? It does not! But it must trace it out on a different planet since you say it moves with the same motion we are considering....the nightly path does not trace out a larger circle...the annual path traces out diferent size circles but you are confusing the nightly path and the annual path they are not the same thing nor are they in the same dircetion....I am not confused about them, everything I am talking about is in how you record them. If I understand your position, you would agree with the following: "one can observe the nightly and the yearly from overlaying 365 nightly recordings (or 12 taken monthly). If that statement is true then the nightly must trace out the yearly. But since it does not, then the annual axis is false." But any analysis of where the position of a nightly circle is (no matter what planet or scenario as long as the distance to the star is multi-magnitues further than the baseline) will show the circle to always be in exactly the same place. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. Either the motion is immpossible or the ability to see the annual circles from the method of viewing the nightly is false. You are confusing the nightly roation with any/every other roational path..the nightly path is one path that only exist due to the roation about that particular axis. That path will never cange nor will the size of that path becuse the stars distance from that axis never changes...The annual path is a path due to a differnt axis of roation..and that path will never change either...DONT CONFUSE THE NIGHTLY PATH AND THE ANNUAL PATH...they are not the same ONE DOES NOT AFFECT THE OTHER........... The nightly cirlce does not trace out a larger circle or move through the sky during the year..?... it is always in the same position WITH THE SAME SIZE! But the proof of the Nightly circle alone (anybodys proof) shows that the nightly circle will always be in the exact same place, exactly Right ....you will allways see them annualy or nightly cause it is a photo grapgh of the same thing taken at differnt times thats all. the axis itself starys the same if the axis does not change then the rotation will not change...it will always be in the same place doing the exact same thing it always has.....rotating around that axis..but we are not talking about that axis we are talking about a completly differnt axis that even by HC must exist!...... so the motion must not be possible. I stop here there is no point in me going any futher untill you get the whole why/ how 2 differnt no equivilent axis and 2 rotations thing down..... But since other planets move with that motion (or am I wrong), it must be possible and therfore something is wrong with the proof. Break that logic Allen! ;-) The nigtly star trails will all ways be visable year around and every night it is the exact same photo graph of the exact same thing.....However...it is the stars distance from the/ any axis of rotation that determines the size of the startrail..this is true of the nightly as well. polaris is close to the axis of nightly rotaion and thus wil have a small circle where other stars that are further from the nightl axis will have larger star trails....Now..there is another axis of rotaion that takes place over a year ( not just a helicopter blade (stars) rotation but now the whole helicopter starts to move in circles [about the sun]) since polaris is further from that axis or rotaion polaris will produce a larger star trail...it must becuse it is the distance of a star from the axis that determins the size of star trails even in the nightly ...the reason polaris is now further from the other axis of rotaion is becuse of the angle of the axis not the stright line( base line) distance)..a axis sitting on a differnt angle cannot have all the same stars as another axis that is facing a differnt direction...it is the stars distance from the axis that determines the star trails size, if you have two differnt axis facing in different directions then the stars cannot be the same distance from both axis at the same time. thus, since HC has two axis of rotation in differnt directions and the stars cannot all be the same distance away from any axis of rotataion all at the same time each star has two diferent paths of two differnt sizes becuse each star is closer to one axis and further from the other..... Now, the above was just a thought that occured to me while I was getting the new drawings ready that you asked for. Hopefully these are easier to look at and, since there are only 3, less confusing and time consuming. The first is about the nighty star trail and the camera, the second and third are about the annual star trail and the camera and why the annual does not work just like the nightly. JA.... j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dr. Jones, My replies in red, I do not understand your drawings. You have not changed the rotation axis from one scenario to the other, so the box is just as far away from the axis in both cases. Correct, but does not matter. What I changed was the way the camera moves around the axis, to demontrate the difference between a camera recording nightly trails and a camera recording annual trails. In diagrams 1, 2 and 3, your camera should not be diverging onto the axis, but be parallel with it. As Allen has said, it does not matter what angle the camera is pointed at, as long as you leave it still, it will record a star trail. The difference between different camera angles will determine where the axis is in the picture. Just like you have in 4, 5 and 6, but here you have not changed the axis! If you change the axis so as to point towards the box and make the rotor blades orthogonal to that axis, then what is the difference between the mechanism of 1, 2 and 3, from 4, 5 and 6? I believe I would still record the same event, just the center of rotation would appear in a different place on the film. The difference between the two (1,2,3 & 4,5,6)(I wish I had thought to name these better) is the difference between the stationary camera rotating with the axis which will record a star trail and the not stationary camera rotating against the axis which will not record a star trail. Perhaps you could redo the diagrams and see. I'll see what I can do, to make it clearer. Allen, Allow me to demonstrate. Actually, your mention of the helicopter is what got my confused questioning to gel into something I could better understand, so I have used the helicopter as my device. I found this much easier to visualize and draw the motions. The Helicopters body will represent whatever axis we are considering. The box on the ground beside the helicopter is any star you want to consider a star trail for. The rotor is either the baseline of earths radius or its orbit depending on whether you are talking about the nightly or annual trail. The Camera on the end of the rotor the camera sitting on a tripod anywhere on the earth. Drawings 1, 2, 3 are of the setup of my system to simulate the nightly star circle. The only difference between 1,2&3 is that I am increasing the length of the rotor axis, so that you can see where the circle produced is heading as the distance begins to negate the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7 shows the positions of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 9 shows the results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo through one revolution in each of the three drawings). The circle is progressively moving to center on the axis of rotation. Exactly what we see in the sky and what your model predicts. Drawings 4, 5, 6 are of the setup of my system to simulate the annual star circle. The only difference between 4,5&6 is that I am increasing the length of the rotor axis, so that you can see where the circle produced is heading as the distance becomes more important than the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7 shows the positions of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 8 shows the results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo through one revolution in each of the three drawings). Both circles (the axis circle and the box circle) are decreasing in size and will diapear into a dot with enough distance. Exactly what we see in the sky, but not what you are predicting. So what is different in my model to yours? If your camera takes pictures 24 hours apart, you are not taking into consideration that the camera has not rotated with the axis of rotation you are trying to record, and as my model shows, that is all the difference needed to make the annual trails disapear. This is not a proof of HC, only a disproof of the disproof, which are not the same. JA... --------------------------------- Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com