[Astrophysics]

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or is incompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.

The classical reasoning (in words), is presented in the publication (click on the public link) below. Steps to write math to it: 1. using the Newton Gravity to show, that ship's hull, which moves along the orbit has weightlessness. It is obviously true. Thus, from definition of inertial system we conclude, that ship is such system. 2. To recall the Law in Nature: the angular momentum does conserve in inertial system. 3. To make conclusion: rotating body does conserve the angle to its orbit.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324950713_Can_someone_show_in_detail_the_derivation_of_Celestial_Pole_precession_within_General_Relativity_formalism

This might be more up to date:
http://vixra.org/abs/1805.0048

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.

I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.

[Astrophysics]

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.

I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.

It is obvious only after reading my research in the link.

[Spycrab]

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle.

I'm curious to see where you got that. It's definitely not "obvious" as you claim.

It is obvious only after reading my research in the link.

You seem to use this analogy as proof:

The axis of the revolving bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet.

But… it isn't, though, unless it's fired in a perfectly straight line. Earth does not move in a straight line.

[Astrophysics]

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct? Yes.

2. There is weightlessness inside rocket. Correct? Yes.

3. So, the laws of inertial systems apply. Including angular momentum (of the apple inside the rocket) conservation. Correct? Yes.

4. The Axis of apple rotation is always directed constantly in the rocket, thus, with the same angle to the orbit. Correct? Yes.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.

Tidal locking can happen, but it fixes the day length to the year length, and Earth isn't tidally locked.

[Astrophysics]

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it.

[Astrophysics]

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it.

I do not see your problem here. You are in ignorance.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

1. The rocket, which flies inertially around the Sun is directed as tangent to the orbit. Correct?

The rocket would need to have the proper angular momentum for that. If it doesn't, then it won't stay tangent.
.......

O.K. give the thing this momentum, can you do it? Yes. There be weightlessness inside this rocket. Correct?

If I give it angular momentum, then it doesn't work in your analogy. We can't easily give the Earth any angular momentum we want, although there have been hilarious proposals to try it.

I do not see your problem here. You are in ignorance.

My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

[Astrophysics]

.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.

I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?

[douglips]

From your paper:

The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directedalong the flight of the bullet.

False. Bullets that are spin stabilized will not necessarily be aligned with their flight path.

From an article on bullet trajectories:

As soon as it exits the barrel, the bullet starts its descending trajectory. As we have seen before, only the center of mass follows the trajectory. The tip of the bullet doesn’t follow the trajectory. In other words, the bullet axis is not pointed in the same direction as the axis of movement. In fact, the bullet longitudinal axis tends to remain pointed in the direction of the line of departure. Therefore, because of the bullet shape, the projectile will always fly at an angle, called angle of attack, relative to the trajectory.

You draw some interesting conclusions from this incorrect assumption. Again, quoting your paper:

Therefore, the Earth’s axis in orbit aroundthe Sun should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year.

Why should the earth make a full circle, and what is an angular radius? I know what an angle is, I know what a radius is, but I don't know what an angular radius is.

[Astrophysics]

From your paper:

The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directedalong the flight of the bullet.

False. Bullets that are spin stabilized will not necessarily be aligned with their flight path.

From an article on bullet trajectories:

As soon as it exits the barrel, the bullet starts its descending trajectory. As we have seen before, only the center of mass follows the trajectory. The tip of the bullet doesn’t follow the trajectory. In other words, the bullet axis is not pointed in the same direction as the axis of movement. In fact, the bullet longitudinal axis tends to remain pointed in the direction of the line of departure. Therefore, because of the bullet shape, the projectile will always fly at an angle, called angle of attack, relative to the trajectory.

You draw some interesting conclusions from this incorrect assumption. Again, quoting your paper:

Therefore, the Earth’s axis in orbit aroundthe Sun should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year.

Why should the earth make a full circle, and what is an angular radius? I know what an angle is, I know what a radius is, but I don't know what an angular radius is.

1. Bullet flies inside the air, thus it can violate my math, because I have bullet in vacuum.
2. I should see the bullet test for myself. What ever they will do, to protect the atheism!
3. If the bullet-test in vacuum of space would show, that my math is violated, then I will say, that there is Light Force K{\nu}, which has rotated the axis of the bullet.

There is article "celestial sphere" in Wikipedia. The distances on this sphere are measured in angle degrees, not in meters. There one can draw circle with radius (radius is distance from the center to the circle perimeter) 23 degrees.

[douglips]

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.

Can you now help me understand why you say that the axis should be aligned with the direction of travel, but now say that the axis will only rotate through 23 degrees radius of the celestial sphere? Because when you said the axis should be aligned, I thought you were saying that the north pole should be aligned with the ecliptic and the orbital velocity vector of the earth with respect to the sun, and that therefore it would describe a circle of radius 90 degrees on the celestial sphere.

OK, so you're saying the earth's axis should precess around the north pole of the ecliptic in a 23 degree circle?

Because it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

[Astrophysics]

...........
OK, so you're saying the earth's axis should precess around the north pole of the ecliptic in a 23 degree circle?

Because it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

In my paper in case of zero Light Force the period of Earth axis precession (it means the full cycle of motion of the Celestial Pole on the Celestial Sphere) is not ~26000 years, but only one year.

[Astrophysics]

.........
My problem here is that, while tidal locking like this exists, it requires a specific angular momentum that Earth doesn't have.

Perhaps a better question for you is, just what force is causing this rotational axial precession?

Do you believe in Church Grace? The Grace is the Force-Field, which is banned from text-books due to war against Priesthood.

I don't follow. What is this force field? How does it cause the Earth's rotation to precess around the celestial pole?

My result is falsifiable: just show me credible mathematics, which shows why Earth axis (not the axis itself, but the Celestial Pole) is practically motionless during one year of orbiting the Sun.

[Westprog]

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.

I've noticed that a lot of flat Earth "research" involves poor English from people who clearly don't have English as their first language. One tends to be sympathetic to this - if I were to write a scientific paper in a foreign language, it would read terribly. One tends to assume that the ideas are sound, but the way that they are expressed is affected by having to express them with words that aren't familiar.

So if this terrible, confused "academic article" were written in clear, unambiguous English, it would be a lot easier to see what a mess it is. It's all over the place, with discussions of angular momentum scattered among religious references and claims that a bunch of flat Earth researchers were murdered.

[Astrophysics]

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.

I've noticed that a lot of flat Earth "research" involves poor English from people who clearly don't have English as their first language. One tends to be sympathetic to this - if I were to write a scientific paper in a foreign language, it would read terribly. One tends to assume that the ideas are sound, but the way that they are expressed is affected by having to express them with words that aren't familiar.

So if this terrible, confused "academic article" were written in clear, unambiguous English, it would be a lot easier to see what a mess it is. It's all over the place, with discussions of angular momentum scattered among religious references and claims that a bunch of flat Earth researchers were murdered.

Yet, we have the perfect understanding. Ask if something is unclear. I am adding improved file.