Horace Heffner wrote: > ... > ... > I really don't think that is possible. There is indeed a slight > apparent retrograde motion of the stars, and it is at an inclination > to the ecliptic. (The poles of the earth's rotation don't match the > poles of the ecliptic.) It amounts to a yearly revolution. It occurs > in the reverse order of the signs (astrological solar houses), i.e. > is retrograde. It is merely an aspect of the earth rotating around > the sun in the ecliptic. It is due to the earth midheaven (or nadir > etc.) at any location rotating, with respect to the fixed sky, > roughly an extra 4 minutes every solar day, i.e 24 solar hours. This > makes the stars seem to be located behind where they were the prior > day, which is an illusion due to the rotation of the earth around the > sun. The sun is off position (with respect to the fixed stars) 4 > minutes a day due to the earth moving forward in its orbit. At > midnight different stars are at the midheaven, and the old stars > appear to move about 1 degree of arc retrograde, i.e. (4 m/(24 h*60 > m))*360 degrees = 1 degree. In one siderial day the earth rotates > 360 degrees with respect to the fixed stars. In one solar day the > sun rotates 360 degrees with respect to the sun. Since the earth > advances about 1 degree in its orbit, the siderial day is about 4 > minutes shorter than the solar day. >
Now extrapolate that to a movement of the Sun that is not apparent, i.e. that is not caused by the translation of the Earth around the Sun, but by the own translation of the Sun, and you'll see what I mean.
