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! 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 -- if you ignore time. I do not see how this is necessary to make HC tenable however. 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? Paul D Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail