Again, the work in the 1970s measure velocity of stars in a galaxy, showing an increase of velocity to a ~8 kpc to then have velocity constant. Then the claim again is that a galaxy should obey keplerian orbital dynamics, (which would actually see decrease not increase up to ~8 kpc) then assert again velocity-deduced mass is less than luminosity deduced mass, and claims there must be misisng mass. These distance-velocity graphs show that stars orbiting the SMBH are slowest, and increase with increased distance to which there is a limit. Clearly desnity thus luminosity decreases as stars are spread out in rotation, then authors assert there must be misisng mass. There is no connection to this assertion. Here is the incoherent text (Longair, 2006, Cambridge) « Both types of observation showed that, in the outer regions of galaxies, the velocity curves are generally remarkably flat, v = constant, as far as the rotation curves could be measured. The significance of this result can be appreciated from a simple Newtonian calculation. If the galaxy is taken to be spherical and the mass within radius r is M(<r), the circular rotational velocity at distance r is found by equating the inward gravitational acceleration, v²/r to the centripetal acceleration, and so [V = GM2/r ]. Thus, if v = constant, it follows that M(<r) «r ; so that the total mass within radius r increases linearly with distance from the centre. This result contrasts strongly with the variation of the surface brightness distributions of spiral galaxies, which decrease much more rapidly with distance from the centre than as r~. Kenneth Freeman (b. 1940) found that models in which the luminosity per unit surface area decreases exponentially with radius provided an excellent fit to these data (Freeman, 1970). To rephrase this important result, the mass-to-light ratio must increase dramatically in the outer regions of spiral galaxies. The conventional way of expressing this result is to state that there must be a large amount of dark matter in the haloes of galaxies. A typical figure for giant spiral galaxies is that they must contain about ten times as much dark as visible matter. » 1) Velocity is not a good measure of mass. 2) A decrease in star density results in a lower luminosity, not dampening by dark matter. Mass is not needed to explain the velocity. It started from a decrease in expected energy that they then claim must be an increase in non-radiating mass. This is too incompetant and discontinuous to not be a deliberate hoax. Of course Peebles who brought you the "big bang is microwaves" calculation* asserted the idea that there must be dark matter keeping galaxy stable. The universe expands. To what precise measure we cannot know for sure due to different techniques lead to different measurements. The cosmology cabal has decided to call expansion "dark energy" as if it was sudden and not innate, and thus scientists have to find the cause of dark energy, another machination of the universe's fundamentals, and it comes to my attention that the universe expands additionally to some degree when gravity curves, it thus adjusts with an increase of mass. There is a hidden agenda for the selected cosmological constant and I believe it is to restrict the age of the universe to a finite ages (13.8 Gyr) thus alchemical quantum processes can explain how we went from 0 to Milky Way in such a short time. I see how standardizing the hubble constant seems convenient for astronomers, however it is devised for the falsification of data.