[Kryptid]

To this question, I answered as best I could, I can’t think for you.

Where did you post a link showing that the stars are motionless?

Who will be able to answer the next question.

Those questions have been answered as well. But you didn't like the answers, so you ignored them in favor of a wrong answer.

[Bored chemist]

Who will be able to answer the next question.

Presumably not you, because you don't seem to understand much.

[The Spoon]

Only a moron can call a person a fool.
I never call anyone a fool.
Regardless of his experience and rank.

Not at all. If somebody acts like one they are worthy of the name. You have proved yourself one by posting utter nonsense.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The question might be "why am I so wrong about this?

There are no answers to the following questions:
...
Are the stars hanging motionless over 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.

even after people have explained circumpolar orbits to me"

Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature.

[Bored chemist]

The question might be "why am I so wrong about this?

There are no answers to the following questions:
...
7. Will the planets be able to hang motionless above the poles of the sun. No, planets will fall to the poles.
And above the poles of the galaxy, a star hangs motionless, resembling levitation, how to understand this?

even after people have explained circumpolar orbits to me"

Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature.

Prove it.

[Bored chemist]

The reason for the geological activity of the planets is also the Solar Coriolis effect.
The higher the axial and orbital speeds of planets and satellites, the more the core of planets and satellites is heated.
The high geological activity of the satellite Jupiter Io can be explained by the fact that the axial and orbital velocity of Io is 15 times higher than that of the Moon.
The orbital speed of Io is 17 km / s, and the orbital speed of the moon is 1 km / s.
The axial speed of Io is 1 revolution in 42 hours, and the axial speed of the Moon is 1 revolution per month.
The distance from Jupiter to Io, the surface temperature and the diameter of Io, are the same as that of the Moon.
Geologically active are also Earth, Jupiter, Ceres, Enceladus and others.
And the geological activity of Venus and Mercury, due to the slow rotation, is extremely low. https://images.app.goo.gl/EC2iXou7XDLBWMB66
If Io’s satellite approaches Jupiter, then Io’s axial and orbital speed will increase, due to which the Coriolis Solar Force can tear Io into numerous pieces, which will then be located along Io’s orbit, forming a ring.
Perhaps the Comet of the Shumeikers - Levi 9, was torn by the Coriolis Solar Effect, when it, at perihelion, approached Jupiter.
At the time of the comet rupture, the distance from Jupiter to the comet reached about 40,000 km., And the orbital speed of 60 km / s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
It is possible that the asteroid belt was 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
Roche limit, there is such a version.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

According to the lunar "theory of the tides", for the formation of the "tidal effect" Io must necessarily rotate around its own axis relative to Jupiter, and Io is always directed with one side to Jupiter.

So what?
The volcanic activity on Io is due to interactions with Jupiter's other moons.

[Kryptid]

Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature.

You seem to have forgotten about 2014 LM₂₈ and 2008 KV₄₂, which have orbital inclinations of 84.739 degrees and 103.4 degrees respectively. You have been corrected about this before. Don't make this mistake again.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

You can give a link to this information.

[Bored chemist]

You can give a link to this information.

Here is a link to show that you have been told this before

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.

[Kryptid]

You can give a link to this information.

For 2014 LM₂₈: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2523719

For 2008 KV₄₂: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3418144

[The Spoon]

You can give a link to this information.

Funny, you ask people to give links to i formation, but when asked for evidence that you understand coriolis you are strangely silent and in fact change the subject.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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) 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster

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.

[Bored chemist]

There are no answers to the following questions:

YES THERE ARE.

[The Spoon]

There are no answers to the following questions:
1. Stars hang above the poles of the galaxy?
a) If it is levitation, then how does it work.
b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ay1/Ay1_main.html
2. Stars revolving around the galactic nucleus form dozens of planes.
a) What force prevents the stars from spinning around the galactic core in one plane.
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 galactic nucleus in only one plane, similar to the planets of the solar system.
d) In the solar system, all eight planets revolve around the sun in one plane.
e) Do the orbits of stars intersect in irregular and other galaxies.
f) Like the stars of the galaxy, objects of the solar system can theoretically rotate around the equator and the meridian, forming dozens of planes, and in practice, they will quickly collide with each other.
4. The claim that globular star clusters revolve around spiral galaxies also goes beyond celestial mechanics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster

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.

Looks like once again you have posted something and then deleted it. I did read it - lots of stuff copied and pasted about coriolis force which was nice but didnt show thar you comprehended it.
The rest seemed to be links to other fora where you have posted the same nonsense as here.

Why?

[Bored chemist]

Do the orbits of stars intersect in irregular and other galaxies?

Yes.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Earthquake hypothesis.
The cause of tremors may be an explosion of underground gases as a result of self-ignition of compressed gas. An explosion can also occur, and from an electric discharge.
If the explosion breaks through the crust of the planet, a volcano forms; if it does not, an earthquake occurs. In Japan, an explosion of volcanic gases crushed a mountain 670 m high, and there are quite a few such facts. 90 percent of volcanoes are located in seismically active zones. Every day on Earth, up to 5,000 earthquakes occur, which, on average, last 5-20s. http://www.evgengusev.narod.ru/spb/zhirnov-2011.html
Seismologists have found that earthquakes more often occur at night than during the day.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.mail.ru/amp/incident/35211141/

Criticism of tectonic theory of earthquakes.
1. There are no convincing facts that tectonic plates exist.
2. Tectonic plates cannot have spring properties.
3. Why earthquakes occur, both at the junction of tectonic plates, and in the center of the plate?
4. The assertion that the plates move due to the temperature difference in the bowels of the Earth is doubtful.
5. It is also doubtful that lithospheric plates can sink in the mantle of the planet, reaching the depth of the outer core.
a) If the lower lithospheric plates easily sink in the mantle of the earth, then during the movement of the plates, the lower plate should easily fall down.
b) You can conduct a simple experiment, if in the pool, to move towards each other, two rubber or wooden plates.

6. A tectonic plate that slides one on top of another at a depth of up to 600 km. and a temperature of more than 1 thousand degrees, at a speed of 1-6 cm / year, will not be able to:
a) During earthquakes, move the surface of the earth, with such an amplitude and on such a scale.
7) On the crust of the earth, the force of gravity and the centrifugal force of the earth act. But because of the orbital rotation of the earth, the centrifugal force of the earth fluctuates. Due to this, there is a mixing of the earth's crust, but not an earthquake. Also, it is possible that over the years, the volume and mass of land is growing. https://galimuhametm.wixsite.com/earthquake

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

According to the tectonic theory of earthquakes, the epicenters and hypocenters of all earthquakes should be in the same place.
a) But in reality, earthquakes occur, both at the junction of tectonic plates, and in the center of the plate?

[Bored chemist]

Earthquake hypothesis.
The cause of tremors may be an explosion of underground gases as a result of self-ignition of compressed gas. An explosion can also occur, and from an electric discharge.

You can't ignite gas unless there's air present.
Your hypothesis fails basic science.

I suggest you learn some.

1. There are no convincing facts that tectonic plates exist.

Apart from geology.

The assertion that the plates move due to the temperature difference in the bowels of the Earth is doubtful.

Why?
Don't you believe that it's hot down there?
If you have heat generated in a liquid you will get convection currents.
In what way is that "doubtful"?
Or is the doubt just stuff you made up?

It is also doubtful that lithospheric plates can sink in the mantle of the planet, reaching the depth of the outer core.

Unlike ice vs water, solid rock is denser than molten rock.
Of course it sinks.

You can conduct a simple experiment, if in the pool, to move towards each other, two rubber or wooden plates.

Is an experiment in a pool likely to be relevant?
Anyway, what you posted makes no sense.
The Russian cartoon doesn't help us much.

will not be able to:
a) During earthquakes, move the surface of the earth, with such an amplitude and on such a scale.

By observation, yes they do.

On the crust of the earth, the force of gravity and the centrifugal force of the earth act. But because of the orbital rotation of the earth, the centrifugal force of the earth fluctuates. Due to this, there is a mixing of the earth's crust, but not an earthquake.

That  does not make sense.

[puppypower]

One wild card variable that needs to a added, is that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface. This is an observation that has been published in the scientific literature. However, many experts wish to ignore it, since it is a huge spoiler to all existing theory. This extra core rotation is relatively slow, but much faster than geological movement.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html

One would expect viscoelastic friction between the faster moving core and the outer core/upper mantle, which then drags the slower moving surface. The slower moving surface is closer to the moon and is more impacted by the gravity of the moon. There should be stresses on the surface. If we did not have earthquakes, to release the stresses, I would be very surprised.

Science needs to adapt to the latest data and not ignore what is inconvenient to the bureaucratic traditions and power structure. Nobody even mentions this revolutionary new observational data. Either scientists are not curious, or pseudo-censorship is in effect. The data was published but without any fanfare hoping it goes away.

The way science should work is such new data should be widely proclaimed, and a formal declaration be made that states something like, " all existing theory for the earth, has been brought into question by some new revolutionary observational data. For now on, all that was considered infallible, is now once again part of alternative theory. Let the gold rush begin. "

This would be better for science, since it would stimulate the creative minds, who will prospect for gold. This give incentive for progress since the creators would be on equal footing with the obsolete, instead of under the thumb of the obsolete as is now the case.

Science does not have its own resources, but is beholden on others like government, business and private donations for it's funding. These all have influence, as to what shall be in science. You bring the basketball to the game, you get to set the rules. This is about the money. No politician or bureaucrat will allow anything to change, if that change can make them look bad or foolish. The progress of science suffers. This is why we are in the bronze and rusty metal age of science. There is no excuse for this. 

[Bored chemist]

The data was published but without any fanfare hoping it goes away.

Almost everything in science is published without fanfare.
Not because people want it to go away, but simply because there's stacks of it.

Now, let's see what actually happened

"Inner core super-rotation is a theorized eastward rotation of the inner core of Earth relative to its mantle, for a net rotation rate that is faster than Earth as a whole. A 1995 model of Earth's dynamo predicted super-rotations of up to 3 degrees per year; the following year, this prediction was supported by observed discrepancies "

So, the theorists predicted the effect based on the models which you are trying to say it doesn't agree with.
And the experimentalists looked for, and found the effect.

That's pretty much the opposite of what you said.

Why did you tell that fairy tale about censorship?