[Kryptid]

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".

[Colin2B]

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

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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

[The Spoon]

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?

[Kryptid]

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?

[Colin2B]

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

[evan_au]

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!

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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.

[The Spoon]

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.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

b) Whether the planet can hang motionless, above the pole of the sun. https://images.app.goo.gl/FneR633KBFYPYPfx5

Yes or no.

[Colin2B]

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

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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.

[Bobolink]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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.

[evan_au]

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

[Kryptid]

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.

[Colin2B]

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).

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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

[evan_au]

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