[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

What you write is not directly related to this topic.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature. There is a circumpolar star. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_constellation

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

1) Circumpolar orbits do not exist in nature.
2) There is a circumpolar star. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_constellation

[Bored chemist]

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?

[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]

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

[Kryptid]

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?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[evan_au]

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

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

The reason for the formation of the ellipse of the planets is beyond the cognitive capabilities of modern science.

Are you smoking something illegal?