From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de   
      
   In article , Keith Stein   
    writes:   
      
   > Can the dark matter hypothesis explain the empirical relationship,   
   >   
   >                      v^4 = K * M   
      
   Of course.  This is why some people conclude that flat rotation curves   
   imply dark matter.  If dark matter couldn't explain flat rotation   
   curves, this conclusion would be unwarranted.  (This doesn't mean,   
   though, that "dark matter has been detected", even indirectly, since   
   there are other possible explanations for flat rotation curves.)   
      
   Step back a bit.  There is a huge literature about flat rotation curves,   
   about dark matter, about possible connections between the two.  If such   
   an explanation were not possible, don't you think that someone would   
   have noticed?   
      
   However, to explain flat rotation curves and the relationship above, the   
   dark matter has to have a very precise distribution.  There seems to be   
   no other reason for this distribution.  This is why some people see dark   
   matter as a contrived explanation in this context.  It would be nice to   
   show that the required distribution occurs naturally, but, despite   
   claims, no-one has done this convincingly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)