Hi James, The diagram by Jack uses artistic licence to exaggerate the effect. Polaris is not due north, but slightly offset. It is not so far away that we do not detect the fact that it describes a circle daily. If we detect that on a World with a 6,300 km radius, how much more would we detect it during the course of one year - which is effectively on a World with a 150,000,000 km radius? Also, the effect on the south celestial pole would be empasized by the tilt of the axis (the "ecliptic") and by the necessary wobble in the heliocentric myth. Neville. j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Well I just wrote this long diatribe on why I think the "Proof of Heliocentric incorrectness 3" is flawed and I lost the draft. Maybe someone didn't want me to send it. I'll test that with one more attempt. After reading the Proof and thinking how could anyone not see the logic in this arguement, I noticed that the Diagram included showed an earth that was summer in the nothern hemisphere all year long. So I wondered how the HelioCentric model would work if I corrected the "wobble" missing from the diagram. At winter solstice the North pole should point 77 degrees up from the plane of orbit (pointing toward the sun) and at winter solstice would be 103 degrees. Now it would seem that the north pole would never (or maybe 1 or twice a year) point at the north star. So I looked up what the helio's had to say. Take two points (where earth is in space at two different locations half a year apart) and then draw a triangle with the third point being the North Star. Now push the north star further away and the triangle narrows. Push it far enough away and the triangle gets hard to draw, it starts to look like a like a line. With the distance that conventional science gives for the north star, there is no way to differentiate the view of the north star at any point of the year and the same reasoning will hold true for the area that the south pole points at. If you take the diagram in the proof and make the same triangle and then push the north star far enough away you will get the same result: a straight line. And you can extend the line through the south pole and far out into space and then still do the same exercise - you can still get a straight line. I am not attacking Geocentrism (which explains what we see also, but without the need for such large distances) just the proof. I think another thing that supports geocentrism and not HelioCentrism is the earth's wobble which so completely matches one year. Why not a complete wobble matching some fraction of a year? Which is more probable given the heliocentric view? I look forward to everyone's replies James... Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com