3 ms·
Let me change your analogy. You take each person, and measure their height. You also "measure" how tall they "should be". You then show that the differences
by AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Let me change your analogy. You take each person, and measure their height. You also "measure" how tall they "should be". You then show that the differences between their actual height and the height they should have had fits a model. That's nice, but for each person, you still assigned a value for the difference between how tall they are and how tall they should have been.
That's what I mean by "it's a per-galaxy parameter". For each galaxy, to explain the behavior of that galaxy, you're saying "it must have X amount of dark matter".
- isthatafact 3y agoThere is no DNA for galaxies, so how could you know what the properties of a particular galaxy "should be"? The focus on "per-galaxy parameters" is like expecting to be able to predict how tall Tom Cruise should be after reading a textbook on the theory of evolution.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoOk so you are admitting that just as evolution is a poor model for human height, DM is a poor model for galaxy rotation curves.
- isthatafact 3y agoMaybe my metaphor was too sloppy to illustrate the point, but I do not follow your logic here at all.