<HTML>Bent wrote:
>
> Dave and Stephen:
> The ecliptic is a circle (it's
> oblateness is irrelevant to the point) which center is the
> pole of the ecliptic, not the NP. When I said 'cover' I
> merely meant that the sun most move along its path at a rate
> consistent with the formulae of 71.428* per 1*, measured of
> course, from the pole of the ecliptic itself.
>
> If you place the vernal equinox near Beta Verginis, as you
> have, the sun will have 'covered' , or moved 148* along its
> path, whereas it should have moved, or covered, 177* of the
> total circle to be consistent with 10450 B.C.
>
> As for your point, Dave, on the eclipitic not being a
> straight line like the RA,
> has really nothing to do with it. In spherical geometry which
> governs the RA and Dec. of the stars, the earth is taken,
> like the stars, to be an invisble point from which all
> co-ordinates spring. These have been applied to planispheres
> and star maps for centuries, now, and however you look at it,
> the sun must cover 177* to be retrograded to 10450 B.C., and
> not 148* as your co-ordinates give.
>
> Bent
But the Sun *has* covered 177 degrees of RA. Beta Virginis is 11hrs 50 mins RA, which at 15 degrees per 1 hour of RA is about 177 degrees.
I still don't understand where you're getting 148 degrees from. For instance, here is a screenshot from Skymap (<B>click on it for a larger view</B>), clearly showing that from the current First Point of Aries (in Pisces) to where it would have been in 10450 BC is clearly almost 180 degrees in both Ecliptical Right Ascension and Celestial Right Ascension.
<A HREF="[
www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk] SRC="[
www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk];
Best Regards,
Dave</HTML>
![www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk](http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/large-ecliptic.jpg"><IMG){kind=link}
![www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk](http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/small-ecliptic.jpg"></A>){kind=link}