@shallow-blue saidCan you prove I made a mistake?
Evidently not, or you'd not make such basic mistakes.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidI already did, two days ago. It's not my fault that you are so ignorant, you don't even have the capacity to accept how fundamentally wrong you are.
Can you prove I made a mistake?
@shallow-blue saidStop lying. You did nothing of the sort.
I already did, two days ago. It's not my fault that you are so ignorant, you don't even have the capacity to accept how fundamentally wrong you are.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidAgain: it is not my fault that you aren't capable of realising how fundamental your lack of understanding is.
Stop lying. You did nothing of the sort.
@suzianne saidHuh? Don't you read the news? People are flying off every single day causing all sorts of damage.
If the earth, at the equator, rotates at over 1000 miles per hour (or 460 meters per second), why don't people fly off?
Have you ever awoken from a dead sleep wondering this, MB?
(I bet you have, you can tell us.)
@shallow-blue saidIt isn't my fault you cannot prove it and you are bluffing like an idiot, insulting everyone's intelligence. You are a shameless liar!
Again: it is not my fault that you aren't capable of realising how fundamental your lack of understanding is.
@metal-brain saidSo you demonstrate the point.
It isn't my fault you cannot prove it and you are bluffing like an idiot, insulting everyone's intelligence. You are a shameless liar!
Science is not about wining and losing, it is not about superiority, it is about learning.
In Sceinec not muich is prooved and if I look at your track records of proofs (comments on a website, videos refering to videos...) it has been proven.
@ponderable saidIt was your point, not mine.
So you demonstarte the point.
Science is not about wining and losing, it is not about suoeriority, it is about learning.
In Sceinec not muich is prooved and if I look at your track records of proofs (comments on a website, videos refering to videos...) it has been proven.
The burden of proof is on you. Stop trying to weasel out of it. You know you have no source of information. You are not fooling anyone.
@Metal-Brain
The only weasel here is you. You totally ignore what he said, science is about LEARNING not politics or one upmanship which is ALL you have. You NEVER contribute to real science here, you ONLY want to weaponize anything you think will help whatever cause you are onto that week.
@sonhouse saidWould dark matter explain why stars at the outer edge of the galaxy move faster than Newton's laws indicate? Even with the additional dark matter calculus doesn't explain that, does it?
@Metal-Brain
The only weasel here is you. You totally ignore what he said, science is about LEARNING not politics or one upmanship which is ALL you have. You NEVER contribute to real science here, you ONLY want to weaponize anything you think will help whatever cause you are onto that week.
Stars revolve around their galaxy's centre at equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances. In contrast, the orbital velocities of planets in planetary systems and moons orbiting planets decline with distance according to Kepler’s third law.
An equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances violates the laws of gravity as we know them. All the dark matter in the world cannot explain that. Dark matter theory is inherently flawed. It needs to be discarded. It never made sense and people are still clinging to it which means they are going down a dead end road and need to go down another to stop wasting time and effort.
The laws of gravity are incomplete.
@metal-brain saidGo ahead, keep embarrassing yourself.
Stars revolve around their galaxy's centre at equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances. In contrast, the orbital velocities of planets in planetary systems and moons orbiting planets decline with distance according to Kepler’s third law.
An equal or increasing speed over a large range of distances violates the laws of gravity as we know them. All the ...[text shortened]... and need to go down another to stop wasting time and effort.
The laws of gravity are incomplete.
@metal-brain saidKepler's laws describe planetary motion, doofus.
LOL!
You are the one that doesn't understand Kepler’s third law.
Is Kepler’s third law right or wrong?
If it is right galaxies are not following that law.
If it is wrong you have some serious explaining to do.
Which is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
Do you even understand that Kepler was describing elliptical orbits of planets?
From "Ask an Astronomer" website:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/95-the-universe/galaxies/general-questions/512-do-stars-orbits-in-galaxies-obey-kepler-s-laws-intermediate
Do stars' orbits in galaxies obey Kepler's Laws? (Intermediate)
"An ellipse has 2 foci around which the bulk of stars flow. Let's assume that a huge star was pointed out in one of these foci.
Would it then be possible to give proof that all stars in the system, were circling around the focus, just as it is said by Kepler's first law.
Kepler's Laws were derived for the planets orbiting the Sun in our solar system. And they work for any situation in which you have one discrete object with a mass far greater than any of the the objects that orbit it. But with galaxies you have a very different situation. The mass of a galaxy is not all concentrated at the center. It's spread out among all the constituents of the galaxy, across hundreds of thousands of light years. As explained here, even the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way isn't massive enough to greatly affect the orbits of the stars in our galaxy (except for those very close to the center).
In practice, and this is especially true for galaxies' stars, the paths are not perfect ellipses. There is often some precession (a slow change in position) of the orbiting object's path, causing it to never repeat the exact same orbit about the central mass (you can search online for "apsidal precession" if you want to know more)."