Talk:Tully–Fisher relation

message: To the curators of this page, please, read this preprint:
https://www.academia.edu/8604226/The_Schwarzschild_Solution_to_the_Nexus_Graviton_Field
Is already published here: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219887815500425
It deduces from a proposed graviton that  v^4= G.M.Ho.c
where M is the total barionic mass, and Ho is the Hubble constant
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.70.167 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A good explanation published

message: Tully-Fisher relation is not a method for measuring distances to spiral galaxies.  The method is analyses of doppler shifting, and the Tully-Fisher relation is a relation between instrinsic brightness and the speed at which galaxies are rotating.  Analyses of the doppler shifting allows determination of the radial velocity (speed at which it is rotating) and hence the Intrinsic brightness via the relation.
This is then compared with the apparent magnitude to extrapolate a distance.
This article needs completely re-wording in the immediate future.
Jazzygm 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is both; it is a relationship between the intrinsic luminosity of a galaxy and the rotation velocities of the stars in that galaxy.  This is the fundamental T-F relation.  But it can be used to determine distances, because intrinsic luminosity is related to apparent brightness by the square of the distance.  I agree with the "badly written / confusing" tag on the page, however; this page needs help. -- David W. Hogg 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I blew ten minutes and re-wrote the article.  I hope people add details. -- David W. Hogg 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely Incorrect? 

message: There is more on the tully-fisher relation on scholarpeida , I don't really have much time, so could someone please write more about it using that article as a source? Pseudoanonymous (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Add more stuff?

message: Shouldn't the article mention dark matter as a possible explanation and not just MOND? Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because dark matter doesn't explain it. The relation is between the observed matter and the velocity width. There would have to be a direct link between the amounts of dark and ordinary matter for the relation to be extended to dark matter. There is no theoretical reason for such a direct relation between the amount of dark matter and the amount of visible matter. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark matter 

message: Overall the graph shown does not seem good evidence of a useful relationship since the slope is so poorly constrained ? Velocity scatter seems to have a range of about 3x ?  graph has no explanation of 'h', or where the data comes from. Could we have a better/sourced graph ? The one at TFR by Tully is better described. - Rod57 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph confusing, vague and unsourced. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tully–Fisher relation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311210954/http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=1080 to http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=1080
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)