IN BLUE... Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen D In reference to 15.png, you said - However, the most interesting thing I find is that if someone accepts that those two are not equivalent then how do you argue that the top one produces the same view as the bottom one? The bottom one will produce indistinguishable nightly and annual star trails that is what you have to accomplish in order to make HC tenable. But the bottom will not show the same thing as the top the top is HC..?......How can the top one produce indistinguishable star trails nightly and annual if the are not equivalent?............. The difference is one of looking at the real rotational motion v just looking in a different direction while in a real rotation In case you think I have suggested that the top model and the bottom model would produce the same view -- absolutely perish the thought! GOOD..Your bottom model is another way of stating something I asked you to consider but which you side stepped and that was to shift the Earth's axis 23.5 deg so as to bring it into alignment with the ecliptic axis. And then of course the daily and nightly would be indistinguishable Only the botom one could do that, make them indistiguishable. We observe the nightly and annaul are indistinguishable. but the Top one would not do the same thing as the bottom one, only the bottom one would make them indistinguishable.......Thus HC is not tennable!?-- if you ignore time. I did not side step you or ignore you i answered that 3 times. in fact i answered it the same way i show it here.... I do not see how this is necessary to make HC tenable however. Because that is the only way the annual and the nightly will coincide so as not to be distinguishable from each other if they are not in distinguishable from each other then HC is not tenable....you agree they would not give the same photo...?....Only the bottom view would make the nightly and annual in distinguishable from each other...........that is what we observe in reality but the top view would give a different photo a photo that is not observed in reality..!? It isn't needed to make the other planets behave the way we say the Earth moves -- especially in the case of Uranus -- so why do you say this in relation to Earth? your are confusing what we observe in reality with What HC would produce if it were true..The two are not the same. That is the point!..No one is questioning what we observe. The point is HC cannot reproduce what we observe. what we observe is no difference between the nightly and annual star trails. however, you just admitted that those two drawings would not show the same thing?....Only the bottom one would show the same annual and nightly star trails. The top one would not, unless it were the same as the bottom one but you just said it was not. The top one is HC but it would not show the same thing as the bottom one. ONly the bottom one could reproduce what we observe in reality. The two cannot show the same thing as what we observe in reality and not show the same thing...? --------------------------------- Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.