4 ms·
With our calculations. Which we know use wrong distance, don’t take spin direction into account, and use newton instead of Einstein. And use things like pi=3=1
by moi2388 2y ago
With our calculations. Which we know use wrong distance, don’t take spin direction into account, and use newton instead of Einstein.
And use things like pi=3=1 and a whole bunch of other simplifications.
It’s a miracle it predicts anything at all.
- mystified5016 2y agoUh, no. None of that explains the fact that the large structure of the galaxies we observe is not possible without extra mass. This has nothing to do with observational error or rounded calculations. The shape of the galaxies and their internal structures are clearly wrong. Besides, this also ignores the fact that we observe galaxies both with and without dark matter. These galaixes have very different structures that cannot arise from the same physics unless we consider dark matter.
- tekla 2y agoI'm sure armies of physicists, astronomers, and generally smart people have not considered the most basic simple possible explanations for why observations of some galaxies do not match our models.
- moi2388 2y agoThey have. Distance calculations are off, they know it, and trying to make it more accurate. They can’t use Einstein because it’s too complicated so they use approximations, and they know it. If the basic assumptions of your calculations are wrong it’s not surprising if your conclusions are as well. Here a link for one of the simple explanations they didn’t take into account leading to wrong redshift measurements https://www.mdpi.com/2571-712X/7/3/41 https://www.mdpi.com/2571-712X/7/3/41