All,
I think a little clarification is required, because some confusion has crept in to these celestial poles discussions.
An observer on a rotating sphere will see apparent trails of stars that are a very, very long way away.
An observer on a stationary World will see real trails of stars that rotate diurnally, whether they are a very, very long way away or not.
These two views are equivalent.
Forget parallax, it has nothing to do with it. If Polaris really is 430 ly away, then parallax would not be detectable anyway. Even Proxima Centauri (proclaimed as 4.1 ly away) produces a parallax measurement of just 0".7
The star trails (whether real or apparent) are produced over the rotation period and about the axis of rotation in either scenario.
The whole point is that there is a fundamental difference between the heliocentric and the geocentric systems inasmuch as there are two components of motion of the World wrt the stars in the heliocentric model, but a rotating ecliptic fixed to the rotating celestial sphere in the geocentric model. The ecliptic polar axis and the celestial polar axis do not coincide, but subtend an angle of 23.44 degrees to one another.
The ecliptic polar axis rotates with the stars, whereas the celestial polar axis does not. This means that the north ecliptic pole and south ecliptic pole are just like star position, with a right ascension and declination. No stars rotate about these poles, just as the stars do not rotate en mass about anything other than the celestial polar axis.
Does the video on our home page not make this clear? If not, I'll consider re-doing it.
Forget alignment with Polaris.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
