Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: Yusup Hizirov on 21/03/2020 23:32:36
-
The Coriolis effect occurs when an object approaches or moves away from the axis of the Earth.
At the same time, when an object that moves on the Earth approaches or moves away from the axis of the Sun, the Coriolis Solar Force arises.
The deflecting Coriolis Solar Force, due to the axial and orbital rotation of the Earth, is much more complicated.
The course of the Volga River is constantly pressed against the western bank of the river, by the force of the Coriolis Earth.
And the Coriolis Solar Force, due to the axial and orbital rotation of the Earth, deflects the Volga River first to the west coast, then to the east, twice a day.
For this reason, winding currents form in the seas and oceans.
The aforesaid can be easily verified by rotating the globe around the axis and in orbit. Wrapped along the equator and meridian with a plastic hose in which fluid moves. http://astrogalaxy1.narod.ru/astro016.html
The Coriolis effect of the Earth does not depend on the inclination of the axis of the earth, and the Solar Coriolis force depends.
The solar Coriolis effect is involved in the formation of the moon ellipse.
When the Moon revolving around the Earth in the last quarter approaches the Sun at a speed of 1 km / s, and in the first quarter moves away from the Sun at a speed of 1 km / s, the Coriolis solar force stretches the moon's orbit along the Earth's orbit, due to which an ellipse of the Moon is formed.
When the moon is in the phase of the new moon and the full moon, the solar Coriolis effect does not affect the orbit of the moon, because in these phases the moon does not approach and does not move away from the sun.
The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be calculated using the following formula. E = Vz / Vl = 0.0411 / 0.55 = 0.0747
Where Vz - Earth's orbital speed - 0.0411 degrees / hour.
Vl - Moon's orbital speed - 0.55 degrees / hour.
The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be calculated using the following formula.
E = (Vz / Sz) / (Vl / Sl) = 0.00071 / 0.0095 = 0.0747
Where Vz is the Earth's orbital speed - 107,218 km / h.
Sz - Distance from the Sun to the Earth - 150,000,000 km.
Where Vl is the Moon's orbital speed - 3683 km / h.
Sl - Distance from the Earth to the Moon 384,000 km.
The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit varies, from 0.026 to 0.077.
Both formulas show that the average eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is 0.0747.
And the average eccentricity of the moon's orbit, obtained using radar, is 0.054.
http://www.aggregateria.com/R/radiolokatsionnaja_astronomija.html
Also, the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit can be determined by the following formula. E = Vl / Vz = 27.3 / 365.2 = 0.0747
Where Vl is the Moon's orbital angular velocity.
Vz - Orbital angular velocity of the Earth.
By dividing the orbital speed of the Moon by the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit, the Earth's orbital speed can be calculated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
The statement that the Moon's orbit rotates and makes one revolution in 8.8 years does not correspond to reality, since the Solar Coriolis effect constantly stretches the Moon's orbit along the Earth's orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession
Based on the fact of the approach and removal of the moon from the sun, it is possible to construct. Reactionless drive.
The reason for the geological activity of the planets is also the Coriolis solar force.
The side of the Earth that is at dawn, due to the daily rotation of the Earth, approaches the Sun at a speed of 1600 km / h, and the side of the Earth that is at sunset moves away from the Sun at a speed of 1600 km / h. Due to this, the Coriolis solar force stretches the Earth along the Earth's orbit, and as a result, the geological activity of planets and satellites increases. (Spinning planets heat up, similar to a flat tire in a car.)
The high geological activity of Jupiter's moon Io can be explained by the fact that the axial and orbital velocity of Io is 15 times greater than that of the Moon.
Io's orbital speed is 17 km / s, and the Moon's orbital speed is 1 km / s. Io's axial velocity is 1 revolution per 42 hours, and the moon's axial velocity is 1 revolution per month.
The distance from Jupiter to Io, the surface temperature and diameter of Io are the same as those of the Moon.
Geologically active are also Earth, Jupiter, Ceres, Enceladus, etc.
The geological activity of Venus and Mercury, due to the slow rotation, is extremely low. https://images.app.goo.gl/EC2iXou7XDLBWMB66
If Io gets closer to Jupiter, then the axial and orbital velocity of Io will increase, due to which the Solar Coriolis force can tear Io into numerous pieces, which will then be located along Io's orbit, forming a ring.
Perhaps the Shoemaker Comet, Levi 9, was torn apart by the Solar Coriolis effect as it approached Jupiter at perihelion.
At the time of the comet's rupture, the distance from Jupiter to the comet reached about 40,000 km, and the orbital speed was 60 km / s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
It is possible that the asteroid belt formed from a planet that, due to an increase in axial velocity, was torn apart by the Coriolis solar force.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt
The coefficient of geological activity of planets depends on the diameter, axial and orbital speed of the planets.
The video shows how the Coriolis solar force is pulling the Earth and the Moon's orbit along the Earth's orbit.
The Earth’s orbit is formed by the Galactic Coriolis force.
When the Earth, revolving around the Sun, approaches and moves away from the center of the galaxy at a speed of 30 km / s, the galactic Coriolis force stretches the Earth’s orbit along the orbit of the Sun, due to which the Earth’s orbit similar to the Lunar one should form. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
But the orbits of the planets are not stretched along the orbit of the Sun, which means that the Sun does not revolve around the center of the galaxy, but is in space, in a motionless state.
The reason for the formation of the ellipse of the planets and the reason for the rotation of the orbits of the planets is in the problem of two bodies, which has not yet been solved, like the problem of three bodies.
The statement that the ellipse of the planets is formed due to the disturbance of the planets does not stand up to criticism, since Venus and Neptune move in a circular orbit. https://m.habr.com/en/post/411567/
The objects of the solar system cannot endlessly revolve around numerous centers.
The laws of celestial mechanics are not omnipotent and are limited by the task of three bodies. The Earth revolves around the Sun, the Moon revolves around the Earth, and nothing revolves around the Moon. No natural planetary satellite has a permanent or temporary satellite, because this will be the task of four bodies, which contradicts the laws of being.
In nature, there is no relationship without symbiosis, and in the center of the galaxy, the solar system does not need.
https://spaceworlds.ru/solnechnaya-sistema/orbity-planet.html
And the main question is why planetary satellites do not have satellites, and asteroids possess satellites. Despite the fact that asteroids are much smaller than planet satellites. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor-planet_moon
The two satellites of Saturn, Janus and Epimetheus, move in the same orbit, and overtake each other every four years.
If these two satellites revolved around the Sun, then Janus would capture Epimetheus. https://elementy.ru/kartinka_dnya/430/Tanets_Yanusa_i_Epimeteya
Based on the foregoing, we can put forward the hypothesis of the formation of the solar system.
1. The solar system is an autonomous object of the Universe and does not revolve around the center of the "galaxy" but is in space, in a stationary state.
2. Sunlight, due to the deflecting force of the Coriolis, revolves around the solar system.
3. At the edge of the solar system, sunlight rotates against the rotation of the sun, at a speed of about 0 km / s, relative to the universe. https://images.app.goo.gl/GZMt3h1e1dH86wWN6
4. The radius of the solar system depends on the speed of light and the angular velocity of rotation of the sun. R ≈ c / ω
The speed of light ≈ 1,000,000,000 km / h.
The angular velocity of the Sun ≈ 0.0105 rad / h.
The radius of the solar system is ≈ 95,000,000,000 km.
http://universetoday-rus.com/blog/2008-07-16-10
5. I believe the stars are huge luminous balls that formed from sunlight.
6. Sunlight transforms into nebulae, stars, globular clusters, galaxies, Kuiper belt, asteroids, protoplanets, planets, which after billions of years, spinning, fall back onto the Sun. There is a cycle of solar matter in nature. Otherwise, for billions of years of its existence, the Sun has long been burned.
7. Outside the solar system, sunlight does not penetrate and it will be impossible to see the solar system from the side of the universe.
8. A planet is an object in the Solar System that has an atmosphere, daily rotation, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
9. All mechanical processes that occur in the atmosphere also occur in the starry sky.
10. The hypothesis that the Moon was formed from the rings of the Earth, and Mercury is a former satellite of Venus, is within the laws of celestial mechanics.
11. In the solar system, everything is programmed and everything moves according to the strict laws of celestial mechanics, due to which randomness and chaos are not possible in the solar system.
12. The theory of the evolution of the Universe should not contradict and go beyond the laws of celestial mechanics. http://www.ponjatija.ru/node/938
Everything is relative!!!
The mechanism of rotation of cyclones, anticyclones, cycles and galaxies is one and the same. This can be verified by comparing these two pictures.
https://images.app.goo.gl/1QaUggrb6N1qQ3xF8 https://images.app.goo.gl/xozpZJsAfkq1owoX9
The galaxy is a single slowly rotating "monolith", which does not obey the law of gravity, because all stars in galaxies rotate with the same angular velocities (like a gas tank cover).
And in the solar system - the farther from the sun the planet is, the lower the orbital speed of the planet. While Neptune makes one revolution around the Sun, Mercury makes more than 500 revolutions.
The orbital speed of Mercury is 50 km / s, and Neptune is 5 km / s. https://life.ru/p/907112
Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that in the center of the galaxy is the eye of the storm, and not a black hole and dark matter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_(cyclone) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
Black holes leave their galaxies. https://news.rambler.ru/scitech/43938566-astronomy-pokazali-kak-chernye-dyry-pokidayut-svoi-galaktiki/ Astronomers accidentally discovered a strange star escaping from the Milky Way.
https://in-space.ru/astronomy-sluchajno-obnaruzhili-strannuyu-zvezdu-ubegayushhuyu-iz-mlechnogo-puti/ The black hole spawned a unique kind of planet. https://m.lenta.ru/news/2020/04/27/hole/amp/
Own movement of stars. https://spacegid.com/zvezda-barnarda.html
Regeneration of cyclones. https://slide-share.ru/regeneraciya-anticiklonov-28872
There are no answers to the following questions:
1. In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in the same plane.
a) And the stars, rotating around the nucleus of the galaxy, form dozens of planes.
b) What force is involved in the formation of the lenticular form of the galaxy?
c) Within the laws of celestial mechanics, stars should rotate around the core of the galaxy in only one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system.
2. The statement that globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies and rotate in very elongated orbits at a speed of ≈ 200 km / s also goes beyond celestial mechanics. https://images.app.goo.gl/7HbHogMoCKWPswX18
a) If only globular star clusters revolved around the galaxy, then globular star clusters would have a disk shape. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
b) Will Saturn and its satellites be able to rotate around the Sun, in the form of a globular cluster?
3. In globular star clusters, there is no orbital rotation of stars.
a) Then what forces form a globular cluster of stars?
4. If globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies, then star clusters should have, rotation axis, libration, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster
Continuation: "The mechanism of thermoregulation of the Earth."
Forum on the flagship. https://vmf.net.ru/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2328&sid=a49d602d08c50eda4f043b73838e5f8a
Forum of Nizhny Novgorod State University named after N.I. Lobachevsky.
http://forum.unn.ru/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10331&sid=cfbc49e0cf32263eff20888ca205ab15
The opening was published in the Russian-German peer-reviewed journal “Eastern European Scientific Journal” No. 3/2015. Page 64. June
Scientific journal NBIKS-Nauka.Tehnologii No. 4/2018. Page 104. (Nanotechnological Society of Russia).
French Maritime Forum. http://forummarine.forumactif.com/t9357-le-flux-et-reflux-est-le-resultat-de-la-rotation-de-la-terre
English forum. "Weather / Earth Sciences" https://www.wxforum.net/index.php?topic=35094.0
-
They are on inclined orbits, much as Pluto is.
-
Why do the stars that are above the poles of the galaxy and do not rotate in the orbit of the galaxy, do not fall on the core of the galaxy.
They did fall already, thus we can't see them anymore. Some stars that missed the galactic core when falling would orbit in inclined angle.
-
For the same reason that satellites orbiting the Earth in polar orbits don't crash into the Earth:
- Providing they keep traveling at orbital velocity, the satellites won't crash into the Earth
- And stars orbiting the center of the galaxy, won't crash into the supermassive black hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_orbit#Earth_orbits
The Max Planck Institute has been studying several bright stars orbiting the central supermassive black hole for almost 20 years now.
- This is long enough to observe large segments of their orbit.
- It is an ellipse, as predicted by Kepler and Newton
- Some teams are now trying to observe some of the time dilation effects predicted by Einstein's General Relativity
- But to the naked eye, the orbits still look like ellipses.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Orbiting_stars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Orbiting_stars)
-
They are on inclined orbits, much as Pluto is.
If the inclination of the star’s orbit will be 90 degrees, then the orbits of the stars will intersect. And the number of stars in the galaxy is tens of trillions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
-
If the inclination of the star’s orbit will be 90 degrees, then the orbits of the stars will intersect. And the number of stars in the galaxy is tens of trillions.
You're underestimating the sheer distances between the stars.
-
If the inclination of the star’s orbit will be 90 degrees, then the orbits of the stars will intersect. And the number of stars in the galaxy is tens of trillions.
You're underestimating the sheer distances between the stars.
The distance does not matter.
-
The distance does not matter.
Two people blindfolded and running around a closet are far more likely to collide than the same two people doing that activity in Australia. Yes, distance makes all the difference.
If the inclination of the star’s orbit will be 90 degrees, then the orbits of the stars will intersect.
They don't need to be inclined at any particular angle for their paths to intersect. Yes, plenty of objects, including our own sun, follow paths over places that cross the paths of other stars. To collide, both stars need to be there at the same time.
This again is why we have multiple satellites in polar orbits and yet they don't collide.
-
The distance does not matter.
Explain your reasoning.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_7/notes31.html
Near the galactic center, the average distance between neighboring stars would be only 1000 AU (about a light-week).
1,000 astronomical units is about 25 times further apart than Pluto is from the Sun. Please explain how stars at such a large separation will collide.
-
There are no answers to the following questions:
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy.
a) Without a doubt, this is levitation and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
2. In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in the same plane.
a) And the stars, rotating around the core of the galaxy, form dozens of planes.
b) What force is involved in the formation of the lenticular form of the galaxy?
c) Within the laws of celestial mechanics, stars can rotate around the core of the galaxy, in only one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system.
d) Do the orbits of stars intersect in irregular and other galaxies?
3. Around the north and south poles of the sun, planets will not be able to rotate.
a) And around the poles of the galaxy stars rotate.
4. The claim that globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics.
a) In order for globular star clusters to rotate around the galaxy, the galaxy itself must rotate around the center, and not be in free flight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster
-
There are no answers to the following questions:
1. In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in the same plane.
And around the core of the galaxy, stars rotate in several planes.
2. Around the north and south poles of the sun, planets cannot rotate.
And around the north and south poles of the galaxy, stars revolve.
3. Above the north and south poles of the sun, planets cannot be located; they will fall on the sun.
And above the poles of the galaxy, there are stars and do not fall.
4. Do the orbits of stars intersect in round galaxies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
1-3 are not questions, they are statements (mostly incorrect ones, at that).
1. In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in the same plane.
No they don't. Each one has its orbit tilted relative to the Sun's equator at least a bit. If you include minor bodies like Pluto and comets, the degree of tilt is far more extreme. As a matter of fact, the trans-Neptunian objects 2014 LM28 and 2008 KV42 have orbital inclinations of 84.7 and 103.4 degrees, respectively. Neither has fallen onto the Sun, despite being in practically polar orbits.
Generally speaking, the planets are close to the same plane because they all formed from the same original gas cloud.
2. Around the north and south poles of the sun, planets cannot rotate.
2014 LM28 and 2008 KV42 disagree with you.
3. Above the north and south poles of the sun, planets cannot be located; they will fall on the sun.
2014 LM28 and 2008 KV42 disagree with you.
4. Do the orbits of stars intersect in round galaxies.
Due to the distances involved, you'd expect that to happen very, very rarely.
-
And above the poles of the galaxy, there are stars and do not fall.
Do you think they just float above the poles of the galaxy, defying gravitational force?
-
Are the stars hanging motionless over the poles of the galaxy.
Do you think they just float above the poles of the galaxy, defying gravitational force?
This question is for proponents of the existence of galaxies.
-
Dear Yusup
It seems that you are not fully satisfied from the answers that you have got and therefore you ask the same questions again.
There are no answers to the following questions:
1. In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in the same plane.
And around the core of the galaxy, stars rotate in several planes.
2. Around the north and south poles of the sun, planets cannot rotate.
And around the north and south poles of the galaxy, stars revolve.
3. Above the north and south poles of the sun, planets cannot be located; they will fall on the sun.
And above the poles of the galaxy, there are stars and do not fall.
4. Do the orbits of stars intersect in round galaxies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
I do understand your key points..
So, let me help you to highlight some of your key ideas.
In order to do so, we first need to understand what do we really see in our galaxy:
1. Accretion disc - all the matter in the accretion disc orbits around the SMBH in the same direction and at the galactic disc.
2. The central bulge - From the accretion disc till 1KPC. In that aria we see that stars orbit in all directions above and below the SMBH.
3. Bar - From 1Kpc till 3KPC - The bar is located between the bulge to the Galactic ring. At the bar we suddenly see some order in the orbital movement.
4. Galactic ring at 3Kpc - All the stars in the galactic ring orbit in one direction while the ring itself is located at the galactic ring. However the estimated thickness of the ring is about 3,000 LY
5. Galactic spiral arm - Starting from the ring at 3KPC to about 12KPC - 15 KPC. In that aria all the stars are located at the galactic disc and orbit at one direction. However, as we get further away from the ring, the thickness is going down. Therefore, at the ring the thickness is 3,000 LY. At our location (8KPC) the thickness is 1,000 Ly. While at the far end of the spiral arms the thickness is about 400 Ly.
So, how could it be that as we go further away, the thickness of the galactic disc is going down?
One of the key element to explain your question is - "orbital inclinations"
Each one has its orbit tilted relative to the Sun's equator at least a bit. If you include minor bodies like Pluto and comets, the degree of tilt is far more extreme. As a matter of fact, the trans-Neptunian objects 2014 LM28 and 2008 KV42 have orbital inclinations of 84.7 and 103.4 degrees, respectively. Neither has fallen onto the Sun, despite being in practically polar orbits.
However, as we go further away from the center, the orbital inclinations should have more severe impact.
For example - a planet with radius R and orbital inclination of x will shift it to maximal h above/below the orbital disc during the orbital cycle. While a similar planet with the same orbital inclination, but at radius 2R, will shift to maximal 2h.
Therefore, as we go further away the impact of the orbital inclination should be more severe.
Hence, how could it be that at the galactic spiral arms, as we go further away, the thickness is going down?
6. Outwards the spiral arms - Suddenly outwards the spiral arms the stars start to move again at any direction above and below the galactic disc.
How dark matter or any other idea can explain all of that complex structure of the spiral galaxy and different orbital behavior at each segment of the galaxy?
Your key question is:
"Why do stars above the poles of the galaxy not fall on the core of the galaxy"
Do you mean when it falls into the SMBH mouth?
Our scientists claim that SMBH eats the stars from the central bulge. In this case, how could it be that the SMBH sets them first at the galactic disc before it eats its dinner? In other words, why each falling star does not set an accretion disc which is based on its current orbital inclination?
I hope that I help you with your questions
-
4. Do the orbits of stars intersect in round galaxies.
Is there a round solar system.
Who can give a link to a description of the mechanism of orbital rotation of tens of a billion stars in round galaxies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster
-
This question is for proponents of the existence of galaxies.
You're denying the existence of galaxies? Seriously?
-
There are no answers to the following questions:
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy?
a) This is called levitation, and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
2. In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in the same plane.
a) And the stars, revolving around the nucleus of the galaxy, form dozens of planes.
b) What force is involved in the formation of the lenticular shape of the galaxy.
c) Within the laws of celestial mechanics, stars can rotate around the core of the galaxy, only in one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system.
d) Do the orbits of stars intersect in irregular and other galaxies?
3. Around the north and south poles of the sun, planets will not be able to rotate.
a) And around the poles of the galaxy stars rotate.
4. The claim that globular star clusters revolve around spiral galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics.
a) For globular star clusters to rotate around the center of the galaxy, the galaxy itself must rotate around the center, and not be in free flight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster
Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results.
-
This question is for proponents of the existence of galaxies.
You're denying the existence of galaxies? Seriously?
I do not just deny, I prove, based on facts.
-
I do not just deny, I prove, based on facts.
Are you saying that galaxies don't exist? Do you think this is some kind of computer-generated image? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#/media/File:Andromeda_Galaxy_(with_h-alpha).jpg
-
This question is for proponents of the existence of galaxies.
You're denying the existence of galaxies? Seriously?
I do not just deny, I prove, based on facts.
So this thing doesn't exist???
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/NGC_2835.png/247px-NGC_2835.png)
-
This thing exists, but it’s not a galaxy, but a cyclone or anticyclone that creates sunlight.
-
This thing exists, but it is not a galaxy, but a solar light cyclone.
You cannot be serious. I assume this a mistranslation of galaxy from Russian!
Care to explain what is causing the lights? If you say stars, then it’s a galaxy.
-
This thing exists, but it’s not a galaxy, but a cyclone or anticyclone that creates sunlight.
I assume you know that there is a great amount of evidence that directly refutes your idea. Do you have any evidence to support this idea?
-
This thing exists, but it’s not a galaxy, but a cyclone or anticyclone that creates sunlight.
Cyclones exist in an atmosphere. There is no atmosphere in space.
-
The OP seems to be competing with himself to say ever more stupid things.
-
This thing exists, but it’s not a galaxy, but a cyclone or anticyclone that creates sunlight.
Do you have any evidence to support this idea?
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy.
a) Without a doubt, this is levitation and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
-
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy.
a) Without a doubt, this is levitation and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
Why have you consistently ignored our explanations for this? I've already provided you with two examples of naturally-occurring circumpolar orbits.
I'm also waiting for you to provide even the tiniest bit of evidence that stars "hang above the poles of the galaxy". In order for you to do that, you would need to provide evidence that those stars do not move. So go ahead and give us that evidence. Snap to it!
-
Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
Imagine a planet in orbit round the pole star.
From here, it would look like it was stationary over the pole.
-
This thing exists, but it’s not a galaxy, but a cyclone or anticyclone that creates sunlight.
Do you have any evidence to support this idea?
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy.
a) Without a doubt, this is levitation and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
You do realise that repeating the same nonsense does not make it true?
-
Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
Imagine a planet in orbit round the pole star.
From here, it would look like it was stationary over the pole.
You write nonsense.
-
You write nonsense.
Pot, meet kettle.
-
Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
Imagine a planet in orbit round the pole star.
From here, it would look like it was stationary over the pole.
If the planet revolves around a polar star, it will not be able to hang above the pole of a polar star.
And you can watch wherever you want.
-
If the planet revolves around a polar star, it will not be able to hang above the pole of a polar star.
You have yet to present any evidence that anything hangs above the pole of anything else, so it's a moot point.
-
Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
Imagine a planet in orbit round the pole star.
From here, it would look like it was stationary over the pole.
If the planet revolves around a polar star, it will not be able to hang above the pole of a polar star.
And you can watch wherever you want.
You do realise that the pole star is apparent over the pole of this planet and it is not universal through the galaxy?
-
Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun?
Imagine a planet in orbit round the pole star.
From here, it would look like it was stationary over the pole.
You write nonsense.
And what do you think the crap you post is?
-
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy?
a) Without a doubt, this is levitation and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
No one can answer this question.
-
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy?
a) Without a doubt, this is levitation and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
No one can answer this question.
Several people have answered it.
You don't seem to pay attention.
-
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy?
a) Without a doubt, this is levitation and contradicts elementary logic.
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
No one can answer this question.
You keep making this claim. Are you really that ignorant?
-
No one can answer this question.
No one else ever said that stars hang over the poles of the galaxy. You are the only one to make that claim. You also never provided any evidence for it. So the burden of proof is on you, not us.
-
No one else ever said that stars hang over the poles of the galaxy. You are the only one to make that claim.
I am the only one who noticed this.
-
I am the only one who noticed this.
So when are you going to provide evidence that your claim is true? Forty posts in and you still haven't shown that those stars, as you put it, "hang motionless".
-
No one else ever said that stars hang over the poles of the galaxy. You are the only one to make that claim.
I am the only one who noticed this.
Yes, therefore you have to back up your claim with detailyou cannot just keep repeating the same rubbish, otherwise you are trolling
-
No one else ever said that stars hang over the poles of the galaxy. You are the only one to make that claim.
I am the only one who noticed this.
Yes, therefore you have to back up your claim with detailyou cannot just keep repeating the same rubbish, otherwise you are trolling
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet, and everything is visible there.
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
-
No one else ever said that stars hang over the poles of the galaxy. You are the only one to make that claim.
I am the only one who noticed this.
Yes, therefore you have to back up your claim with detailyou cannot just keep repeating the same rubbish, otherwise you are trolling
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet, and everything is visible there.
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
How do you think that proves your increasingly ridiculous point?
-
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet, and everything is visible there.
And how does that demonstrate that there are stars that "hang motionless" above galaxies?
-
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet, and everything is visible there.
If it is all ‘there’ then you are not the first to have noticed.
We need more detail from you on how your idea works or you are trolling
-
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet
Yes, and some of them are near the Sun's axis of rotation.
- For example, in the Southern Hemisphere, the "Clouds of Magellan" are two naked-eye dwarf galaxies that lie near the Sun's axis of rotation
- If you watch them with the naked eye, you might think that they are hanging motionless there
- In fact, these dwarf galaxies are in an extended orbit around our own galaxy
- They will, in time, be disrupted by tidal interaction with our galaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Clouds
Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun
Unlike the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere doesn't have a conspicuous "pole star".
- But there are a few stars that are close to the polar axis of the Sun, including the nearest known star to the Sun, Proxima Centauri, and its planet in the potentially habitable zone (Proxima Centauri b, orbital period 11 days)
- Just because it is "hanging there" does not mean that the Sun is a dominant force on its motion
- The major forces on the planet are its star
- the major force on the star is it's two companion stars (Alpha Centauri A & B)
- The major force on the group of 3 stars is the whole mass of the Milky way galaxy (at least, the part of the galaxy that is closer to the center)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri
So, we (the Solar System) is orbiting the center of our galaxy, as are other stars and planets, and dwarf galaxies and globular clusters.
- But on the timescale of an individual human, and with the visual acuity of a human, all of these seem motionless.
- "Motionless" is a very relative term!
-
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet
Yes, and some of them are near the Sun's axis of rotation.
- For example, in the Southern Hemisphere, the "Clouds of Magellan" are two naked-eye dwarf galaxies that lie near the Sun's axis of rotation
- If you watch them with the naked eye, you might think that they are hanging motionless there
The sun is not the center of the galaxy.
Before Copernicus, our earth was the center of the universe.
-
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet
Yes, and some of them are near the Sun's axis of rotation.
- For example, in the Southern Hemisphere, the "Clouds of Magellan" are two naked-eye dwarf galaxies that lie near the Sun's axis of rotation
- If you watch them with the naked eye, you might think that they are hanging motionless there
The sun is not the center of the galaxy.
Before Copernicus, our earth was the center of the universe.
Nobody said it was. You appear to be incapable of properly comprehending replies to your your ridiculous statements.
-
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. https://images.app.goo.gl/FneR633KBFYPYPfx5
Yes or no.
-
Yes or no.
I suggest you read the reply from evan https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79042.msg603251#msg603251
The answers are there
-
Yes or no.
I suggest you read the reply from evan https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79042.msg603251#msg603251
The answers are there
I answered him, but in my opinion he does not understand what is being discussed in this topic.
-
Yes or no.
The answer is no. Everybody agrees the answer is no.
You will now say then why do you think stars hang motionless over the center of the galaxy? The answer again is nobody thinks that.
The crux of the issue is you seem to think it is impossible for a star to have an orbit that is perpendicular to the disk of the galaxy. We disagree. You need to show evidence that you are right.
There is evidence you are wrong, if you look at the orbits of stars around the BH at the center of the milky way you will see they are all not aligned with the galactic plane.
-
There are many photographs of “galaxies” on the Internet, and everything is visible there.
And how does that demonstrate that there are stars that "hang motionless" above galaxies?
-
The crux of the issue is you seem to think it is impossible for a star to have an orbit that is perpendicular to the disk of the galaxy.
You have evidence that they rotate perpendicular to the galactic disk.
Give a link to this information.
-
Can the planet hang motionless above the pole of the sun...
stars hang over the poles of the galaxy.
All planets (or other masses like stars) will feel a gravitational force from every other mass in the universe, and will have a net acceleration based on the net force acting on the planet (or star, etc).
And its possible that the velocity of the planet relative to some other point in space could be zero (motionless) for an instant as the velocity changes from negative to positive.
But in practice, most things in space are moving at some velocity relative to everything else in space, pretty much all the time - and usually a pretty high velocity compared to things we are familiar with on Earth - jet airplanes, bullets and satellites in Earth orbit.
Answer: No.
Reason: You haven't looked closely enough
You have evidence that they rotate in orbit.
Give a link to this information.
The purpose of the Gaia spacecraft is to accurately measure the position and velocity of a billion stars, using the parallax technique. I was surprised that they have even managed to measure the position of some stars in the Magellanic Clouds - I would have thought that was too far away to get a good parallax measurement!
A companion project is using large ground-based telescopes to obtain a radial velocity of each star, using high-resolution spectroscopy. Put the measurements together, and you can measure the position and velocity of these billion stars in 3 dimensions.
This project has already identified groups of stars that were previously thought to "hang motionless" in the sky, but are now known to be streams of rapidly moving stars that are not part of the galactic disk, but are in fact remnants of dwarf galaxies that are in orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
Other parts of these star streams will appear to hang motionless above the bulge of our galaxy. But that is only because a still photograph does not have enough resolution in time or space to see that in fact these stars are moving quite rapidly.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stellar_streams
-
You have evidence that they rotate perpendicular to the galactic disk.
I've given you examples that prove that circumpolar orbits are possible in nature. So circumpolar orbits are plausible. Stars "hanging motionless" are not plausible.
You have yet to give one ounce of evidence that stars can "hang motionless" above galaxies. What are you waiting for? Do you expect us to swallow your claim if you keep repeating it enough? If you want us to get off of your case, then show us the evidence that those stars "hang motionless". I have never seen anyone who has made that claim except for you.
And just in case you try this tactic, "I can't see them moving with my eyes" is not evidence that they are sitting still. All the stars in the night sky look like they are sitting still, but they aren't.
-
Yes or no.
I suggest you read the reply from evan https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79042.msg603251#msg603251
The answers are there
I answered him, but in my opinion he does not understand what is being discussed in this topic.
No you didn’t answer him. What you said was:
The sun is not the center of the galaxy.
Before Copernicus, our earth was the center of the universe.
Evan never said the sun was the centre of the galaxy, and whether it is or not is irrelevant.
Neither was our earth ever the centre of the universe (except in the expansion sense in which case everywhere is the centre).
-
You have evidence that they rotate perpendicular to the galactic disk.
I've given you examples that prove that circumpolar orbits are possible in nature. So circumpolar orbits are plausible.
Credibility is the misfortune of science. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_constellation
-
Circumpolar Constellations
The fact that there are stars and constellations near Earth's rotational axis is no surprise.
The set of Earth's Circumpolar Constellations are different from the Sun's Circumpolar Constellations, because the Earth's rotational axis is tilted by 23 degrees relative to Earth's orbit, and the Sun's rotational axis is tilted by 7 degrees relative to Earth's orbit.
But there is no suggestion that these Circumpolar Constellations are stationary in any sense. They are just drifting around at random within the general rotation of the galactic disk.
For several millennia since the ancient Greek philosophers, the stars in the sky were taken to be unchanging (and it was a bit of a shock when an occasional supernova flared for a few weeks or a month).
Edmund Halley (who predicted the posthumous return of his eponymous comet) was the first to provide evidence that stars move. He was examining a star chart produced by Hipparchus. The position of some bright stars were off by the width of the full Moon - a mistake no self-respecting astronomer would make.
This movement across the sky is now called "Proper Motion". The star with the largest known Proper Motion is nicknamed "Barnard's Runaway Star".
Stars with large proper motion tend to be nearby stars. Most stars are red dwarfs (including most nearby stars), so there is a proposed successor to Gaia that would survey star positions at infra-red wavelengths; this would detect red dwarfs more easily.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion#Examples
-
What you write is not directly related to this topic.
-
Credibility is the misfortune of science.
No, I gave you examples of objects that are in circumpolar orbits. I gave you a link showing the data on the degree of tilt to their orbit (as you requested). So what do you call it when someone knows that something is true but claims that it's false? You call it lying. So you if you claim that circumpolar orbits do not exist naturally, then you are lying because I gave you the requested data that clearly demonstrates their existence.
What you write is not directly related to this topic.
It's directly related to circumpolar constellation link you posted.
-
Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature. There is a circumpolar star. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_constellation
-
4. The claim that globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics. https://images.app.goo.gl/goz9RPyJb3QqMxEZ7
a) If spherical star clusters revolved around the galaxy, then spherical star clusters had the shape of a disk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
b) Why does Saturn and its moons not revolve around the Sun in the form of a globular cluster?
2. Do stars rotate in globular star clusters, if so, around what?
Who will be able to answer this question.
-
Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature.
So either:
(1) You are lying, or
(2) You are accusing NASA of lying when they say that 2014 LM28 and 2008 KV42 have orbital inclinations of 84.7 and 103.4 degrees, respectively: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2523719, https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3418144
So which one is it?
-
1) Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature.
2) There is a circumpolar star. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_constellation
-
This whole thread is silly.
Nothing hangs in the sky.
Everything is attracted to everything else.
However, if you are far enough away, and looking at things over a short enough timescale, some stars and galaxies look pretty much to stay in the same place relative to eachother as the Earth spins and orbits.
SO, depending on how petty you are being, either everything hangs in space, or nothing does.
What point could this thread be trying to make?
-
The crux of the issue is you seem to think it is impossible for a star to have an orbit that is perpendicular to the disk of the galaxy.
You have evidence that they rotate perpendicular to the galactic disk.
Give a link to this information.
-
c) Within the framework of the laws of celestial mechanics, stars can rotate around the core of the galaxy, only in one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system.
In elliptical galaxies, there is no "plane of the galaxy"; the stars move like a swarm of bees in a volume of space shaped like an American football.
It is thought that elliptical galaxies may form from the collision of several spiral galaxies which are orbiting in different planes. In the galactic collision, the stars are tiny targets, and almost always miss each other, but they do transfer angular momentum between the stars through gravitational near-misses, resulting in stars which take on many different velocities, in many different orbital planes around the center-of-gravity of the combined galaxy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy
-
1) Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature.
2) There is a circumpolar star. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_constellation
So are you, or are you not, accusing NASA of lying about the orbital inclinations of those two trans-Neptunian objects? Oh, and it turns out that we have even found an exoplanet with an orbital tilt that is very close to polar as well (83.2 degrees): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.1177.pdf
I don't think you even know what a circumpolar orbit is.
Give a link to this information.
Why should we? When we do, you ignore it (like you are ignoring the data that I presented about the circumpolar orbits of two trans-Neptunian objects). When we ask you to supply a link to information about stars "hanging motionless", you never supply it. Why do you have a double standard? Why is it required for us to give evidence but not required for you to give evidence?
-
Give a link to this information.
Why should we? When we do, you ignore it (like you are ignoring the data that I presented about the circumpolar orbits of two trans-Neptunian objects). When we ask you to supply a link to information about stars "hanging motionless", you never supply it. Why do you have a double standard? Why is it required for us to give evidence but not required for you to give evidence?
I express a personal opinion.
You must express an official opinion and write a link.
-
I express a personal opinion.
No, it's not an opinion. Opinions are subjective. "The sky is beautiful" is an example of an opinion because it is subjective. "Circumpolar orbits don't exist in nature" is not an opinion. It is a statement that is either true or false because it is objective, not subjective. Thanks to data NASA has obtained, we know that the statement is false (check the links I just supplied to you).
Who will be able to answer this question.
There are no questions in your quote. If you claim there are, then show me where the question marks are.
-
4. The claim that globular star clusters are satellites of galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics. https://images.app.goo.gl/goz9RPyJb3QqMxEZ7
a) If spherical star clusters revolved around the galaxy, then spherical star clusters had the shape of a disk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
b) Why does Saturn and its moons not revolve around the Sun in the form of a globular cluster?
2. Do stars rotate in globular star clusters, if so, around what?
Who will be able to answer this question?
-
You must express an official opinion
This is a debating forum.
None of us is an "official". We don't have an official opinion here.
-
Who will be able to answer this question?
Me. I am answering that question with this reply
And since that was the only question in your post, your question is now answered.
You can stop going on about it now.
-
Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun
There is one exceptional case in our Solar System where a moon could hang (almost) motionless above the pole of its planet: Uranus.
- The spin axis of Uranus very close to the plane of our Solar System: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Axial_tilt
- There are 5 "Lagrangian Points" around any planet where an object (space rocks, a moon, or a space probe) can hang motionless in the sky
- These Lagrangian points L1-L5 around Uranus are aligned with the orbital axis, but not the rotational axis
- So during its leisurely 84-year orbit around the Sun, Uranus would spend many months with a moon above its pole.
So it almost meets the criterion of the question - provided you don't watch for more than a year!
If spherical star clusters revolved around the galaxy, then spherical star clusters had a disk shape
It is true that the Solar System has a flat disk shape
- And so do the spiral arms of our galaxy.
However, these two examples do not mean that everything has a flat disk shape. Some counter-examples (in decreasing order of size):
- Elliptical galaxies
- The central bulge of the Milky Way galaxy (and many other spiral galaxies)
- Globular Clusters
- Electrons in an atom
c) Will the globular planetary clusters be able to rotate around the Sun.
No. Your imagination of a globular cluster is too small by a factor of at least 100,000.
Globular Clusters have typically 100,000 to 1,000,000 stars.
So a Globular Cluster would not be said to "orbit around the Sun" - but if you put the Sun near a Globular Cluster, you could well say "the Sun orbits around the Globular Cluster".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster
-
Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun
There is one exceptional case in our Solar System where a moon could hang (almost) motionless above the pole of its planet: Uranus.
- The spin axis of Uranus very close to the plane of our Solar System: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Axial_tilt
But it does not hang but rotates.
-
What theory or experiment proves that the gravity of the planets is infinite?
The formula F = G ∙ M ∙ m / R² does not prove that the force of gravity is infinite.
The law of universal gravitation says: The force of gravitational attraction between two material points is proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
And not a word that the gravity of the planets is infinite.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
What would the gravitational force formula look like if the gravity of the earth did not exceed - 10,000,000 km, and the moon - 100,000 km?
If the gravity of the Earth reached the Sun, then the temperature of the Earth would be much higher.
Earth's gravity does not reach Venus, proof of this is Venus's circular orbit.
The reason for the formation of the ellipse of the planets is beyond the cognitive capabilities of modern science. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
-
The formula F = G ∙ M ∙ m / R² does not prove that the force of gravity is infinite.
Yes it does.
If the force is proportional to the reciprocal of the square of the distance then the only range at which that force is zero is infinity.
At any distance which is less than infinity, the force is greater than zero.
So, at any range up to infinity, the force is present, and attractive.
What did you think you were talking about?
-
The reason for the formation of the ellipse of the planets is beyond the cognitive capabilities of modern science.
Are you smoking something illegal?
-
What would the gravitational force formula look like if the gravity of the earth did not exceed - 10,000,000 km, and the moon - 100,000 km?
It would be dark.
If the Earth's gravity didn't extend by at least far enough to reach the Sun, about 149.60 million km, the Earth would have flown off into space.
Do you understand that the law of gravity has been checked quite carefully?
-
If the gravity of the Earth reached the Sun, then the temperature of the Earth would be much higher.
Why?
-
And not a word that the gravity of the planets is infinite.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Would you like to choose a different format in which to announce the fact that you do not understand the word "universal"?
-
What theory or experiment proves that the gravity of the planets is infinite?
There is a vital word missing from this sentence - is it talking about:
- The range of gravity? (as some sentences imply)
- Or the force of gravity? (as some other sentences imply)
The short answer is that:
- The range of gravity is infinite, as pointed out by BC (some would say this is because the hypothetical graviton has zero rest mass)
- The only way the force of gravity could be infinite is if two massive objects were separated by zero distance. The only place this can occur is during the merger of two black holes, where all the mass of the black hole is located at a hypothetical singularity of zero size. During the merger of two black holes, these two singularities would approach each other to that distance. But we can never observe this, because the final phase of a black hole merger takes place behind the inscrutable barrier of the event horizon.
What would the gravitational force formula look like if the gravity of the earth did not exceed - 10,000,000 km
It would violate another of Newton's famous equations; this one says "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".
The Sun's gravity clearly does reach the Earth (150 million km), since we are in orbit around the Sun: The Sun exerts a gravitational force on the Earth.
- But if the Earth's gravity did not reach the Sun, the Sun's force on the Earth would not equal the Earth's force on the Sun, violating Newton's law of action and reaction.
- But we know that the Earth's gravity does reach the Sun, because when astronomers detect exoplanets using the "red-shift wobble" technique, they also detect the Earth's effect on the Sun
- The Earth and the Sun both orbit around their "barycenter" (which is much closer to the center of the Sun than it is to the center of the Earth!).
- You can see this directly from Newton's gravitational formula (call m the mass of the Earth, and M the mass of the Sun): F = G ∙ M ∙ m / R² = G ∙ m ∙ M / R², ie the force of the Sun on the Earth is equal to the force of the Earth on the Sun.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
Earth's gravity does not reach Venus, proof of this is Venus's circular orbit.
The reason for the formation of the ellipse of the planets is beyond the cognitive capabilities of modern science.
Actually, the regular changes in a planets eccentricity (and other orbital parameters) were worked out by Milankovitch during the first world war - without the benefit of computers!
- Each planet tugs on every other planet, continually modifying each others orbits
- The current near-circular orbit of Venus is just a passing phase.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87#Planet's_insolation
-
If the gravity of the Earth reached the Sun, then the temperature of the Earth would be much higher.
If it didn't reach the Sun, then it wouldn't be attracted to the Sun. The Sun's gravity can't affect the Earth without the Earth's gravity also affecting the Sun. That would violate Newton's third law, as it would allow the Sun to exert a force on the Earth without an equal and opposite force being exerted back on the Sun.
Earth's gravity does not reach Venus, proof of this is Venus's circular orbit.
I don't know if you've noticed this, but Venus' orbit is not perfectly circular.