Eight: 

A free-floating camera ( looking at the North Celestial Pole ) will rotate around the NCP axis

( clockwise ) if either the Earth's orbit around the sun exists or the aether has not just it's sidereal motion but a secondary annual rotational harmonic as in the Modified Tyconic Model ( MTM ). It is the MTM to which we would want to validate. If MTM is false, the HC/AC Earth orbit must be considered demonstratably false as well, since the two are considered "equivalent". If it does not rotate around that axis over the course of a year then there can be no claim to any motion around that axis ( aka Foucault's pendulum in space ). Either way, over the course of a year the solar and sidereal motion would not synchronize perfectly as there are a different number of sidereal days than solar days in the course of a year. 

 

Secondly:  Sidereal time and solar time would synchronize every approximately 574.56 cycles or "days" ( sidereal time 23.94 x 24 hours = 1 cycle )  and the Earth would not be in the same spot with respect to the sun in it's orbit ( at the end of each cycle the Earth would be progressing through a radial orientation around the sun and wrt the background stars ). Using these cycles would keep the sun, Earth and camera in a straight line wrt each other and thus by definition either demonstrate a progressive radial orientation to an axis that runs through the sun or not while at the same time negating the nightly sidereal rotation. This would isolate any rotation exclusively to the annual if it exists. This experiment might take 5-8 years. Supplemental thought: maybe any ( secondary harmonic i.e. sidereal + annual rotations ) data could be extrapolated from a Gravity Probe B type experiment if it were available?  It did measure an effect but that effect had nothing to do with the motions under consideration. From what I understand, it is interesting that the data has been less than forthcoming . . . only "interpretations" released . . . may have to look into that. 

 

Thirdly: The moon does not translate around the sun, although it moves faster than the stars it still orbits the sun if the Earth orbits the sun, with ~12 possible exposures over the course of a year that would positively identify the directions and angles wrt the Earth of any axis of any orbit(s) and rotation(s) . . . . . . some of the equivalence in motion(s) between Geocentrism and Heliocentrism is only with respect to an observer on any two bodies but would not apply once a third observatory is introduced.

 

Now the issue is how do we get a camera to free-float looking at the North Celestial Pole orbiting a North Celestial Pole axis that runs through the Earth without fixing it to the Earth. Allen Daves    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Seven: 

A position that travels or not with the Earth’s supposed orbit yet not in translation with the Earth should very clearly be able to demonstrate any rotation around the sun with respect to the background stars which are “fixed” assuming it exists. Stars in translation around the Earth are only observable equivalent from the Earth, it is not mechanically equivalent! This is to say that if the Earth is orbiting the sun that is not the same as the sun just moving slower than everything else in the sky . . . even if the stars were doing some translation it could only give an equivalent appearance from the Earth under HC conditions but if HC is right equivalent observations cannot hide a real rotational motion as long as we don't attempt to observe it from the Earth's assumed position.  Allen Daves    

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Six:

 

I am not trying to prove a motion that I do not believe exists! I do not believe a translation, any translation, exists period! Whether it exists or not is somewhat moot . . . I am not nor have I ever tried to show the difference between Earth in translation to sun versus universe in translation to Earth . . . those two are equivalent and the distance is only relative to that issue . . . I am not addressing that . . . I am going to show the nature of the relative motions of any two bodies ( Earth/sun or Earth/universe ) can only be visualized from a third position which is external of the two bodies and thus the relative motion of that third position must be taken into account. You say no third position exists . . . well it has to on paper. You are confusing the conceptualization with the reality of the motion . . . yes a third obtainable position does exist and in reality!!! The Earth is not the only position from where we can know is not in translation around the sun nor having the universe translate around it . . . it is obtainable and thus we can determine an orbit around the sun or not . . .  but I do want to lay out some fundamentals first:

 

1. Two different systems under consideration:

 

First ( the HC/GC equivalent ) either the Earth translates around the sun or the universe translates around the Earth.  There is absolutely no reason for this motion!? Parallax does not support this period because there is negative parallax as well . . . thus there is absolutely no reason for this construct.

 

or

 

Second: a universe that goes around the Earth but does not translate around the Earth.

It is posible to determine if this translational motion exists in the first place either around the Earth or Earth around the sun. If the Earth is not translating around the sun or visa versa then the first one would not and is not equivalent to the second! The observable differences between equivalent and non-equivalent motions is what I am after, not the differences between equivalent translational motions . . . if that translational motion exists then I know we could not distinguish the translation of the universe versus the translation of the Earth . . . that was never what I was after either!

 

 2.  'Translation' is not a magic word nor does it make everything disappear . . . it can only affect the relative observable motion between any two bodies but any third observatory is not bound to the effects of the relative motion between those two bodies! . . . yes a third position does exist . . . and it does not have to translate around the sun and we can know that the universe does not translate around it and it is virtually in the same exact spot as the Earth. Further, if you stop and think about your diagram any orbit is itself a translation ( the axis is pointed in the same direction with respect to the background stars . . . so that there is still a rotational equivalent from one of the other bodies . . . I am not trying to argue the effects of the Earth in translation around the sun versus the universe in translation around the Earth! . . . but a translation, any translation, still has a rotational effect with respect to a third body if it exists.

 

Again, any camera rotating with respect to any object including real stars will show a rotataion . . . yes the Earth is said to have a translational orbit . . . but a translational orbit has a relative equivalent motion which has the external observer spinning! . . . . . . I am addressing and identifying the nature of relative motions and the fact that relative motion of any two bodies can only be visualized from a third position which is external of the two bodies and thus the relative motion of that third position must be taken into account . . . it is not nearly as obvious as it may first appear . . . but we have the sun, the Earth and the universe . . . in the HC/GC equivalent we have either the Earth/sun or Earth/universe in translation . . . since the Earth is common to both we need a third position that we know is not translating around the sun and we know is not translating with the universe . . . does such a postion exist either naturally or artificially . . . yes!!!

  

Again, I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed that those two translational motions which are equivalent can be distinguished . . . however, if there is no translational orbit then you do not have equivalent motions in the systems and thus we could make a determintion if that is not the case, because they are not equivalent. 

 

We will get to the "imagination parts" later after we establish the nature of equivalent motions and their

effects . . . but even when we do get to the imagination parts I am hoping to have a real and viable experiment to perform so as to make a determination between the two proposed systems.  Allen Daves

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five:

 

Just how does scale have anything to do with rotational effects? Demonstrate something don't just

imagine . . . if you take any camera and rotate it against any object at ANY distance, at ANY scale . . . including real stars you get rotational effects! That being absolutely true . . . please clarify and explain your objections with something real not just something imagined.  Allen Daves

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four:

 

A translational motion has a relative equivilent motion which is the same as the observer spinning ( any spin at any scale will produce the rotational effect ) not just the bodies in motion around each other. If motion is only relative then the effects must be the same.  Allen Daves

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three:

 

You are missing the fact that motion is relative. It matters not what is in real motion or not . . . stars or camera . . .

any scale of a rotaion will produce a real rotational effect every time. Please explain your objections using something real not just imagined talking points. A camera at any scale will show a rotational effect if it is in rotation! Guys that is science, demonstratable and reproducable at ANY scale EVERY time using real stars!! What you fail to realize is that in Mainstream Science all motion is purely relative. That is to say the rotation of a camera is equivalent in every way including any/all effects as the universe in rotation around a fixed camera . . . scale has nothing to do with rotational effects!!! This is a undisputed fact! . . .  Any camera that rotates ever with respect to the real stars will produce a rotation!  Go outside and see for yourself!  Quit using your imagination and start applying real-world testable applications.  Allen Daves 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two:

The basic issue before us is what if any effects should we see given the HC ( heliocentric ) construct.
I want to start by focusing attention on these two diagrams . . .