The dipole repeller

@suzianne said
Kepler's laws describe planetary motion, doofus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

Do you even understand that Kepler was describing elliptical orbits of planets?

Again, irrelevant to the discussion here. Elliptical orbits are an idiotic digression by you. The outer stars are supposed to move slower than the inner stars of a galaxy according to Kepler's 3rd law. You are extremely ignorant of science. You understand nothing and pretend to have a superior understanding without ever proving anything.

You are a pathetic bluffer. All you do is bluff nonsense.

@metal-brain said
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.

Do you see how I was talking about Kepler’s third law and Suzianne digressed into the 1st law as if she was proving something. She doesn't even know the difference between the 1st and 3rd laws.

Suzianne is a pathetic bluffer who deliberately misleads due to her inept capabilities she desperately tries so hard to hide.

@metal-brain said
Again, irrelevant to the discussion here. Elliptical orbits are an idiotic digression by you. The outer stars are supposed to move slower than the inner stars of a galaxy according to Kepler's 3rd law. You are extremely ignorant of science. You understand nothing and pretend to have a superior understanding without ever proving anything.

You are a pathetic bluffer. All you do is bluff nonsense.

I gave you the link to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. I suggest you go read it.

Kepler's laws describe planetary motion, not the galactic motion of stars in a galaxy, which is far more chaotic. They require modification, as well as taking into consideration other mass, including spiral arms and CDM halos.


Consider this page, with the resulting conversation in the comments, not that I expect you to draw any proper conclusions from the data discussed.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_use_Keplers_third_law_to_calculate_orbital_period_of_a_star_in_a_galaxy


Also try looking at this page from an astronomy forum:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/forum/science-and-space/space-astronomy-questions-and-answers/77868-so-why-don-t-kepler-s-laws-apply-to-stellar-motion-around-galactic-centers#post2133430

@metal-brain said
Do you see how I was talking about Kepler’s third law and Suzianne digressed into the 1st law as if she was proving something. She doesn't even know the difference between the 1st and 3rd laws.

Suzianne is a pathetic bluffer who deliberately misleads due to her inept capabilities she desperately tries so hard to hide.

Dude, orbital mechanics of a solar system (where there are planets) depend on Kepler's first law. I was saying that you argue about Kepler's third law without taking the first and second laws into consideration.

How many differences between planetary orbits and stellar orbits do you need before finally conceding my points?

@suzianne said
Dude, orbital mechanics of a solar system (where there are planets) depend on Kepler's first law. I was saying that you argue about Kepler's third law without taking the first and second laws into consideration.

How many differences between planetary orbits and stellar orbits do you need before finally conceding my points?

Elliptical orbits have nothing to do with it. If you had a shred a decent knowledge of science you would know that. Calculus covers that and even calculus says the outer orbits move slower. This is really not all that complicated. That is why you are transparently ignorant. You are rejecting Kepler AND Newton!

@metal-brain said
The outer stars are supposed to move slower than the inner stars of a galaxy according to Kepler's 3rd law.

Wrong, but as you are too stupid even to understand just how stupid, I can't be bothered to explain further. Suzianne is simply right: you can't apply Kepler outside a solar system, any more than you can apply Mendel to non-sexual reproduction or Bernouilli to turbulent systems. But you are too pig-headed to accept that, and there's an end to it.

@shallow-blue said
Wrong, but as you are too stupid even to understand just how stupid, I can't be bothered to explain further. Suzianne is simply right: you can't apply Kepler outside a solar system, any more than you can apply Mendel to non-sexual reproduction or Bernouilli to turbulent systems. But you are too pig-headed to accept that, and there's an end to it.

"you can't apply Kepler outside a solar system"

That is MoND theory which is unproven. Like Suzianne, you are just making up unproven theories and trying to pass them off as fact. Kepler's 3rd law has never been proven wrong. Stop trying to rewrite the history of science!

You are incredibly stupid!

@metal-brain said
"you can't apply Kepler outside a solar system"

That is MoND theory

No, it quite categorically is not.

@metal-brain said
"you can't apply Kepler outside a solar system"

That is MoND theory which is unproven. Like Suzianne, you are just making up unproven theories and trying to pass them off as fact. Kepler's 3rd law has never been proven wrong. Stop trying to rewrite the history of science!

You are incredibly stupid!

No one is saying Kepler is wrong. His laws guide our modern understanding of angular momentum, without which we never would have made it to the moon, nor probes to Mars. I'm saying YOU are wrong by applying his laws of planetary motion to a galaxy.

@suzianne said
No one is saying Kepler is wrong. His laws guide our modern understanding of angular momentum, without which we never would have made it to the moon, nor probes to Mars. I'm saying YOU are wrong by applying his laws of planetary motion to a galaxy.

" I'm saying YOU are wrong by applying his laws of planetary motion to a galaxy"

You are contradicting yourself. I said Kepler's 3rd law didn't explain the motion of stars in a galaxy and that the laws of gravity are incomplete. Now you are confirming exactly that while falsely claiming I said the opposite.

Your lying brought you around full circle.
You are an ignorant joke and so is shallow. He did the same thing.

There is an alternative explanation though. The speed of stars in a galaxy were measured incorrectly. I think that should be ruled out first before revising the laws of gravity. If that can be ruled out for certain then MoND theory should be considered, but it has some problems too.

It seems to me that accepting both dark matter and dark energy is needless. Dark energy is all that is needed unless it is both, but why complicate things unnecessarily until you have to?

@metal-brain said
" I'm saying YOU are wrong by applying his laws of planetary motion to a galaxy"

You are contradicting yourself. I said Kepler's 3rd law didn't explain the motion of stars in a galaxy and that the laws of gravity are incomplete. Now you are confirming exactly that while falsely claiming I said the opposite.

Your lying brought you around full circle.
You are an igno ...[text shortened]... is all that is needed unless it is both, but why complicate things unnecessarily until you have to?

And now we truly come full circle by me telling you to go on, keep embarrassing yourself.

@suzianne said
Go ahead, keep embarrassing yourself.

But you agree with me now.

@metal-brain said
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.

Oh how suzi embarrasses herself by eventually agreeing with me. She is claiming the laws a gravity are incomplete now just as I did before. LOL!

Are you embracing MoND theory now suzi?

@metal-brain said
But you agree with me now.

But I do not.

@metal-brain said
Oh how suzi embarrasses herself by eventually agreeing with me. She is claiming the laws a gravity are incomplete now just as I did before. LOL!

Are you embracing MoND theory now suzi?

Was this something you read on GlobalResearch.com?