Quote:
you're wrong, big time ... and we covered this in an earlier exchange.
The "rotational velocities of visible objects" are only estimated by "applying a lot of other theories"!
It seems that, for you, some theories are quite "the real thing" (rotational velocities, visible objects, centripetal force, mass, ...), but others are not.
|
That doesn't help your argument. That is another reason to think the mass estimates are wrong.
Quote:
Or do you not realise just how inextricably intertwined these are, with theories? If I may recommend something: please re-read Ken G's post, very, very carefully.
Did you read the links provided, re "distance"?
Do you have any questions concerning the disconnect between your (apparent) intuitive understanding of "distance" and what the term means in astrophysics?
|
I only ask that when talking about "astrophysical distance" one not use the same sort of context as when talking about distance. One is a very complicated story about a whole slew of variables, the other is distance. Don't go around saying "this galaxy is this many light years away." That use of the word "is" refers to another word lingering there anonymously: distance, the real thing. If you are not painfully clear that you mean - as far as I can tell - an un-disprovable theory, no one who is not a professional astrophysicist or a philosopher of science is going to know what you meant.