Back in 2005 when I proposed that the 26 mile spherical deviation of the planet is linked to plate tectonics via differential rotation of the fluid interior (across latitudes) ,the response of the community was to throw the kitchen sink at rotation without actually mentioning zonal flow across latitudes. I see the same here with direct/retrogrades and the necessary distinction between the faster and slower moving planets so what looks like an improvement becomes a mess in the hands of those who are just chancing their arm.

While the geological proposal remains speculative although supported by visible clues on the surface crust or by using planetary comparisons between the Earth and Venus both dynamically and geologically, the direct/retrograde topic in front of observers is 100% verifiable. I suppose I should kick up a fuss but with the wider community reluctantly pursuing the correct path but the fuller picture will eventually make it out.

So, the only means to stop the Sun moving through the constellations so our parent star acts as a central reference for the motions of Venus and Mercury is to adopt the oldest astronomical framework where the stars 'come in season' or in dynamical terms - they are far enough to one side of the Sun to emerge as a dawn appearance. Of course it introduces a slightly more complicated narrative than just comparing the illusory loop of Mars with the actual loop of Venus but observers shouldn't be overly concerned with the complication. The fact is proof of the Earth's orbital motion is the transition of the stars from left to right of the Sun and to ignore that is pretty small.