It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.
... , but Kepler provides better data than either.
I find that fascinating since it is widely held that Kepler simply stole Brahe's data.
How did Tycho demonstrate that without earth movement or epicycles retrograde motion was possible, I tried to find the info on my own but could not.
2.) Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?
Some stars are farther away than others.
Which works if the Earth is moving relative to the stars.
How exactly did you decide which frame of reference was correct?
[/quote]
Not sure what you are asking but i am guessing you mean how do we know that its not the stars movement, but that it is our movement creating the parallax?
Well first off in the FAQ the stars are at 3100 miles in altitude in FE, so no, they are not all at different distances. Perhaps the FAQ is wrong, and the stars are at different distances.
This is still not a reason for the parallax to exist. If the earth is not moving, and it is indeed simply the stars shifting their alignment back and fourth, what mechanism is creating this effect. Is DE somehow creating a pattern on top of the universal acceleration?
To answer your question regarding accepting one point of reference over another - I guess the simplest answer is most likely the best. Rather than jump to the conclusion that the stars are moving ever so slightly due to some unknown (maybe you know) force, i am simply choosing to believe that the earth rotates around the sun.
1.) How does retrograde motion work in FE? If Brahe has shown this please post a link, i am really just curious.
2.) Why does the stellar parallax exist in FE?
3.)To answer the question regarding the changing of the north star - In RE the earth's axis (the 23.5 degree slant) rotates once every 24000 to 26000 years. In Flat earth does this 23.5 degree shift occur in the stars themselves, and if so, what causes this seemingly random event?