Originally Posted by P A N

i just got out of the shower, and mistakenly read this.

the difference between yours and his is that he brought up the fact that the tail of a comet isn't behind it. it is based on its position relative to the sun. he must have saw the flaw in my thinking for what it was, which was that i was thinking the sun should have a tail because it is supposed to be moving. i was seeing the tail of the comet as being the result of its movement through space. i was incorrect. your argument was that the sun and comets are different in composition/substance/state, and because of that, their movements through space appear different. your argument - like mine - assumed the comet to have a tail which was indeed a tail. the tail follows the comet. janzs' argument throws that out the window.