Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars

  • 21 Replies
  • 8820 Views
?

Theorist

  • 75
  • Prove FE Wrong!
Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« on: August 09, 2008, 08:50:45 PM »
How do time lapse photographs of stars fit into the FE and RE?

Do these photographs support FE, or RE, or both, or none?

If you haven't seen them, they are amazing...

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=time%20lapse%20stars&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Prove FE Wrong!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2008, 08:55:41 PM »
The stars are also spinning around various barycenters above the earth in the FE model.

?

Theorist

  • 75
  • Prove FE Wrong!
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2008, 09:34:24 PM »
The stars are also spinning around various barycenters above the earth in the FE model.

You are indeed extremely intelligent Mr. Bishop.

Every time you reply I have to look up the words you use.

You know a great deal about this subject and are such an asset to this forum.

If a barycenter is something above earth - what creates that baricenter, the earth itself projecting it into the sky, or objects in the sky orbiting around to cause it?

I have never understood how these time lapse photo's don't just come out a mess, my question is will these images always show this circle of stars on a RE and FE?

If there would be differences or these images support the FE and/or RE or both theories, then why and how?

What do they support, FE?

Are these images possible on RE?

EDIT: A problem - how are these images possible in FE when it means the stars all have to be going round at least say 150 to 180 degrees of a circle, within a time frame of about 4 to 8 hours of near-darkness to capture this in a time lapse photograph?

That means all the stars are orbiting each other as fast as the sun is orbiting, which, oh my, it does make sense, the stars would indeed be floating about like this at a similar rate as the sun and moon. Assuming the moon travels the same or similar speed to the sun? Also assuming whatever force makes the sun move is what makes the stars move?

How many "barycenters" do we know of?



« Last Edit: August 09, 2008, 09:45:31 PM by Theorist »
Prove FE Wrong!

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2008, 01:09:28 AM »
The stars are also spinning around various barycenters above the earth in the FE model.

All the "star-trail" photographs I have ever seen have describe a perfect circle (excluding fish-eye lenses).  In the FE universe the observer (unless they were above the north pole), would see an ellipse of trails.

Have all the star-trail photographs been taken from the north pole, or does this tell us something about the true shape of the earth?

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2008, 01:20:12 AM »
Quote
I have never understood how these time lapse photo's don't just come out a mess, my question is will these images always show this circle of stars on a RE and FE?

Both RE and FE have circular star patterns rotating over it.

Quote
What do they support, FE?

The motion of the stars demonstrates that the sun and moon are not just arbitrarily moving around the area above the North Pole. There is an entire swirling cosmic system up there which the sun and moon sits in.

Quote
If a barycenter is something above earth - what creates that baricenter, the earth itself projecting it into the sky, or objects in the sky orbiting around to cause it?

It's quite simple. The sun moon and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Think of a binary star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system.

Quote
All the "star-trail" photographs I have ever seen have describe a perfect circle (excluding fish-eye lenses).  In the FE universe the observer (unless they were above the north pole), would see an ellipse of trails.

Have all the star-trail photographs been taken from the north pole, or does this tell us something about the true shape of the earth?

My model for celestial light mechanics in this thread explains why the star trails face the observer at different latitudes.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 01:58:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2008, 01:41:00 AM »
Quote
That means all the stars are orbiting each other as fast as the sun is orbiting, which, oh my, it does make sense, the stars would indeed be floating about like this at a similar rate as the sun and moon. Assuming the moon travels the same or similar speed to the sun? Also assuming whatever force makes the sun move is what makes the stars move?

It's true that the stars move as if the stars were painted onto a solid disk. The stars near the center move at a slower velocity than the stars towards the edges.

This type of behavior is also seen in the galaxies. Galaxies also move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers. In the Round Earth model stellar systems like this aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

See this article on softpedia.com:

    "According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk – as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."


See this article on Wikipedia:

    "In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics,[1] a result which was extended to many other spiral galaxies during the seventies.[2] Based on this model, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, that is, according to Newtonian mechanics. Based on this, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1). At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center.

    Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat" -- outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant function of radius (the solid line Fig. 1). The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge. This extra mass is proposed by astronomers to be due to dark matter within the galactic halo, the existence of which was first posited by Fritz Zwicky some 40 years earlier in his studies of the masses of galaxy clusters. Presently, there are a large number of pieces of observational evidence that point to the presence of cold dark matter, and its existence is a major feature of the present Lambda-CDM model that describes the cosmology of the universe."

The physics of multiple body systems are not yet fully understood. RE Physcists usually try to explain these observed discrepancies as "Dark Matter did it." It's one of the major stumbling blocks of RE Theory.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 01:54:34 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2008, 02:13:32 AM »
Quote
If a barycenter is something above earth - what creates that baricenter, the earth itself projecting it into the sky, or objects in the sky orbiting around to cause it?

It's quite simple. The sun moon and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Think of a binary star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system.

Some questions your explanation poses:

What is the nature of this attraction?
Multiple body systems are known to be unstable long term. Why has the cosmos retained its ordered nature?
Why does orbital velocity not depend on distance to this "barycenter"?
Why are there more stars on one side of the barycenter than the other (the milky way)? Would this not make it "wobble"?

Finally, you claim that the underlying reason is a "vast cornucopia of stellar systems", but this is not a cause. It's like saying wind happens because of moving air, when the underlying reason is actually solar heating.

Quote
All the "star-trail" photographs I have ever seen have describe a perfect circle (excluding fish-eye lenses).  In the FE universe the observer (unless they were above the north pole), would see an ellipse of trails.

Have all the star-trail photographs been taken from the north pole, or does this tell us something about the true shape of the earth?

My model for celestial light mechanics in this thread explains why the star trails face the observer at different latitudes.

Ha! You mean the explanation that relies on this diagram:



Your understanding of refraction is abyssmal, you've drawn the refraction the wrong way and massively exaggerated. The question still stands.

It's true that the stars move as if the stars were painted onto a solid disk. The stars near the center move at a slower velocity than the stars towards the edges.

This type of behavior is also seen in the galaxies. Galaxies also move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers. In the Round Earth model stellar systems like this aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

Not quite. Galaxies do not behave as solid disks, like you claim the cosmos does. If they did, this diagram would be a straight horizontal line:



As you can see, reality agrees with theory up to a point, and it behaves nothing like a "solid disk".

So the question stands: Why does the cosmos behave like the stars are painted onto a solid disk?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2008, 02:39:11 AM »
Quote
What is the nature of this attraction?

The gravitational nature of the attraction is unknown. It could be electromagnetic, or it could be because of graviton particles, or some unknown type of gravitating mechanism.

Quote
Multiple body systems are known to be unstable long term. Why has the cosmos retained its ordered nature?

If it the cosmos above us were unstable and unordered the system would have broken up and the sun would have flown off eons ago. Life on earth would not exist.

Quote
Why does orbital velocity not depend on distance to this "barycenter"?

It does depend on the distance to the barycenter. The system generally moves as if it were a solid disk, remember? The bodies near the North pole move at a slower velocity than the bodies on the outside of the disk. Think of a record player.

Quote
Why are there more stars on one side of the barycenter than the other (the milky way)? Would this not make it "wobble"?

That would depend on what kind of attracting element those milky way stars were producing. Just because there are more of them in one area doesn't mean they they are attracting with greater power than the stars on the other side of the disk. There is nothing to say that each star must share the same physical properties and no more.

Quote
Your understanding of refraction is abyssmal, you've drawn the refraction the wrong way and massively exaggerated. The question still stands.

I didn't say anything about terrestrial refraction causing this. In the thread I specifically say that the stars and cosmos are attracting the sun's light rays upwards.

Quote
Not quite. Galaxies do not behave as solid disks, like you claim the cosmos does. If they did, this diagram would be a straight horizontal line:

As you can see, reality agrees with theory up to a point, and it behaves nothing like a "solid disk".

If you read my quotations my sources clearly say that the galaxies generally move as if they were solid disks. Perhaps some observations have noticed some very very slight slowdown in some parts of the disk's radius, but that's pretty insignificant. The galaxies are still generally moving as if they were disks, opposite to that Newtonian theory predicts.

The movements of the galaxies are entirely contradictory to the Round Earth model's predictions.

Quote
So the question stands: Why does the cosmos behave like the stars are painted onto a solid disk?

I don't believe that the rotation of the stars above us has been studied enough to ascertain whether they are truly and absolutely moving as a solid disk or not. Some stars may be moving slightly elliptical, or some might experience a very slight slowdown towards some areas of the disk's radius like in the galaxies. The subject matter just hasn't been studied enough.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 02:52:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2008, 07:08:17 AM »
Quote
Multiple body systems are known to be unstable long term. Why has the cosmos retained its ordered nature?
If it the cosmos above us were unstable and unordered the system would have broken up and the sun would have flown off eons ago. Life on earth would not exist.
In RET the solar system is unstable, but would likely remain in roughly the same state for billions of years to cme. However, in te solar system the dominant forcs is the sun's gravity which is constant. The night sky contains many more stars than there are bodies in the solar system but has no stabilising influence from a large body like the sun. So, you would expect it to break down much faster.

The bodies near the North pole move at a slower velocity than the bodies on the outside of the disk. Think of a record player.
Sorry, I was speaking about angular velocity ( in rad s-1).

Quote
Why are there more stars on one side of the barycenter than the other (the milky way)? Would this not make it "wobble"?
That would depend on what kind of attracting element those milky way stars were producing. Just because there are more of them in one area doesn't mean they they are attracting with greater power than the stars on the other side of the disk. There is nothing to say that each star must share the same physical properties and no more.
By conservation of momentum, the stars must orbit around their common centre of mass (COM). However, because of the milky way the stars are far more densely packed on one side of the barycenter.
This means that to satisfy conservation of momentum you must posit something like "dark matter" so that the COM and the barycenter coincide. Thus, FET celestial mechanics are no simpler than in RET.

Quote
Not quite. Galaxies do not behave as solid disks, like you claim the cosmos does. If they did, this diagram would be a straight horizontal line:
As you can see, reality agrees with theory up to a point, and it behaves nothing like a "solid disk".
If you read my quotations my sources clearly say that the galaxies generally move as if they were solid disks. Perhaps some observations have noticed some very very slight slowdown in some parts of the disk's radius, but that's pretty insignificant. The galaxies are still generally moving as if they were disks, opposite to that Newtonian theory predicts.
Like I said, the galaxy rotation curve is very unlike what you would expect if galaxies moved as solid disks. Compare the solid line t a straight horizontal line and you will see there is significant deviation.

The movements of the galaxies are entirely contradictory to the Round Earth model's predictions.
Hypothesising dark matter explains not only the galaxy rotation curve, but also the deflection of light around the galaxies (which is not what would be expected if the visible matter was all that was there).
As I've said, you must also hypothesise dark matter.

Quote
So the question stands: Why does the cosmos behave like the stars are painted onto a solid disk?
I don't believe that the rotation of the stars above us has been studied enough to ascertain whether they are truly and absolutely moving as a solid disk or not. Some stars may be moving slightly elliptical, or some might experience a very slight slowdown towards some areas of the disk's radius like in the galaxies. The subject matter just hasn't been studied enough.
If, like you said, stars moved in elliptical orbits or with different time periods then astronomers would notice. These stars would seem to move relative to other stars. This is something that telescopes worldwide are trying to spot -- it's how asteroids and comets and such are found.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2008, 09:32:59 AM »
I don't believe that the rotation of the stars above us has been studied enough to ascertain whether they are truly and absolutely moving as a solid disk or not.

Nearly all large telescopes use tracking platforms which are aligned with the earth's axis of rotation and move with incredible precision.  I really think any "moving" stars would have raised a few eyebrows by now.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2008, 01:13:44 PM »
I don't believe that the rotation of the stars above us has been studied enough to ascertain whether they are truly and absolutely moving as a solid disk or not.

Amazing quote.
Ooompa ooompa

?

zxms

Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2008, 08:11:36 PM »
Hi everyone. I'm new to these forums so this might be explained elsewhere, and if so I apologize, but I have not found exact the answer to this that I've been looking for...

In a round Earth it is assumed that the Earth spins on an axis (from West to East) while all of the stars around it remain stationary. This is supported by the observation that the stars circle around a single point. In the Northern hemisphere we observe stars to circle East to West around the North star, counterclockwise.

What this also means is that according to RET, the stars visible at any point south of the equator appear to travel clockwise, not counterclockwise like in the Northern hemisphere. Also, an observer standing on the equator could look due East, watch stars rise straight up, pass directly over head, and set due West; to him the two "poles" are due North and due South at the horizon, so stars in the North would move in a counterclockwise arc and stars in the South would move in a clockwise arc.)

This is a very simple observation that can be conducted by any individual. All a citizen of the US would need to do is acquire a passport, tour to various points throughout South America, southern Africa, and Australia, and spend an hour or two watching the night sky. If it can be observed that stars and constellations appear to circle the same exact point in the clockwise orientation, this should heavily support RET.

Could such an observation be explained in FET? I can understand if the further you are from the north pole, the stars might pass closer to a straight path overhead, but certainly not in the opposite orientation.

Thanks!

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2008, 12:24:40 AM »
Hi everyone. I'm new to these forums so this might be explained elsewhere, and if so I apologize, but I have not found exact the answer to this that I've been looking for...

In a round Earth it is assumed that the Earth spins on an axis (from West to East) while all of the stars around it remain stationary. This is supported by the observation that the stars circle around a single point. In the Northern hemisphere we observe stars to circle East to West around the North star, counterclockwise.

What this also means is that according to RET, the stars visible at any point south of the equator appear to travel clockwise, not counterclockwise like in the Northern hemisphere. Also, an observer standing on the equator could look due East, watch stars rise straight up, pass directly over head, and set due West; to him the two "poles" are due North and due South at the horizon, so stars in the North would move in a counterclockwise arc and stars in the South would move in a clockwise arc.)

This is a very simple observation that can be conducted by any individual. All a citizen of the US would need to do is acquire a passport, tour to various points throughout South America, southern Africa, and Australia, and spend an hour or two watching the night sky. If it can be observed that stars and constellations appear to circle the same exact point in the clockwise orientation, this should heavily support RET.

Could such an observation be explained in FET? I can understand if the further you are from the north pole, the stars might pass closer to a straight path overhead, but certainly not in the opposite orientation.

Thanks!

There are several south celestial poles - some have said there are two, I am more inclined to believe that there are three. The stars south of the equator orbit these south celestial poles, while those north of the equator orbit the north celestial pole.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2008, 01:11:20 AM »
The stars are also spinning around various barycenters above the earth in the FE model.
Yes! magical things all around is...

When you talk science you don't assume stupid things like you say to prove your point. RETARDED mongoloid

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2008, 04:11:35 AM »

There are several south celestial poles - some have said there are two, I am more inclined to believe that there are three. The stars south of the equator orbit these south celestial poles, while those north of the equator orbit the north celestial pole.
This is a very clear assertion, which deserves a model and some measurements. A diagram showing the way the stars rotate around the four (or three) celestial poles would be very nice. There must be some places in the sky where you can see simultaneously the rotation of stars around two or more of them.

Some detail in your diagram would make predictions possible around the known fact that almost the same constellations are visible in every part of the Southern hemisphere.


*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2008, 04:17:02 AM »
When you talk science you don't assume stupid things like you say to prove your point.
That's pretty much what science is.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2008, 04:20:02 AM »
This is a very clear assertion, which deserves a model and some measurements. A diagram showing the way the stars rotate around the four (or three) celestial poles would be very nice. There must be some places in the sky where you can see simultaneously the rotation of stars around two or more of them.

Some detail in your diagram would make predictions possible around the known fact that almost the same constellations are visible in every part of the Southern hemisphere.

I have been meaning to create a few images to make plain the structure of the Flat Earth, both a map of the Earth itself and some illustrations of the cosmos, but my focus at the moment is calculating the strength of the EA.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2008, 09:28:29 AM »
Quote
Nearly all large telescopes use tracking platforms which are aligned with the earth's axis of rotation and move with incredible precision.  I really think any "moving" stars would have raised a few eyebrows by now.

Read any of the astronomical anomalies books at your local library. Astronomers have observed moving stars, zig zagging stars, and a great number of other phenomenons incompatible with the RE model.

Here's a good one: http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Universe-Handbook-Astronomical-Anomalies/dp/0915554054/ref=pd_sim_b_6
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 05:58:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2008, 10:04:11 AM »
Quote
Nearly all large telescopes use tracking platforms which are aligned with the earth's axis of rotation and move with incredible precision.  I really think any "moving" stars would have raised a few eyebrows by now.

Read any of the astronomical anomalies books at your local library. Astronomers have observed moving stars, zig zagging stars, and a great number of other phenomenons incompatible with the RE model.

Here's a good one: http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Universe-Handbook-Astronomical-Anomalies/dp/0915554054/ref=pd_sim_b_6

Are you sure they are incompatible with the RE model? 

1. Please give any specific examples, explaining how they falsify the RE model.
2. Please explain how they support a the FE model.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2008, 01:58:22 PM »
Oooh, the forums are finally back...  :o Where have you guys been?

As for the topic, here we go:

Read any of the astronomical anomalies books at your local library. Astronomers have observed moving stars, zig zagging stars, and a great number of other phenomenons incompatible with the RE model.

Here's a good one: http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Universe-Handbook-Astronomical-Anomalies/dp/0915554054/ref=pd_sim_b_6

People who see "stars" that appear to be "zig-zagging" could just as well be seeing asteroids or anything else that's moving around fairly close to the Earth. Considering that the book you linked to is A: almost 30 years old, B: primarily attempts to challenge popular scientific theories such as the big bang - not that the Earth is round, and C: appears to be frequently cited on UFO and conspiracy sites, I'm somehow not very motivated to spend $20 on it on the off chance that it may contain references to weird celestial phenomena.

As has been discussed before on this forum, the fact remains that there are only two central points in the sky around which the stars appear to rotate: one visible from the northern and one from the southern hemisphere. And as if that wasn't enough, it should also be noted that the stars in the north move in anti-clockwise rotation around the north star, while in the south they move clockwise. This is of course perfectly consistent with RET. In FET on the other hand, this would produce weird celestial movements from certain vantage points on Earth that simply do not occur. The possibility that someone may or may not have seen some "stars" moving oddly a couple of decades ago does not detract from this.

Let me recapitulate for you:

RET: perfect explanation.
FET: lots of scratched heads and puzzled faces.


By the way, welcome back FES! I missed you!
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 02:00:08 PM by MadDogX »
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2008, 02:08:37 PM »
The stars are also spinning around various barycenters above the earth in the FE model.

Various? From those pictures, it seems they either only spins around one so-called "barycenters", or they are standing still, and the earth is spinning.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Time Lapse Photographs Of Stars
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2008, 02:28:01 PM »
The stars are also spinning around various barycenters above the earth in the FE model.

Various? From those pictures, it seems they either only spins around one so-called "barycenters", or they are standing still, and the earth is spinning.


Don't let Tom mislead you into using the word "barycenter". The proper term in this case would be "axis". Indeed there is only one observable axis of rotation for the celestial sphere. If there were several, someone probably would have noticed by now. Convoluting the facts to support their arguments is what FE'ers do best.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.