/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12691941
>the most recent that comes to mind is that a group managed to match the rotation curve of the Milky Way using estimates for visible matter only and a more complex GR metric
In the paper they don't attempt to select the metric based on the observed matter distribution, at all. The parameters they fit in their metric are in terms of the rotation curve, not physical variables like the total mass. So they do not bother to test whether or not the mass distribution implied by their imposed metric is even remotely plausible.
And their model is obviously oversimplified, there's no bulge. They're only really fitting a tiny bit of the rotation curve where it's flat.

>>12555342
>>12554524
Also if you actually look at the rotation curve in their model it's clearly worthless. The Gaia data only measure it at the boring radii, when much better data exist. The real Milky Way has a rise in the center due to the bulge. They use 4 parameters to fit the flat bit of the curve.

>>6714958
forgot pic